I am currently trying to bring Tow Law Town A.F.C. to GA and one of the issues that has come up is squad numbering in the current squad section. I was wondering if anyone could give me any help or sources to resolve the issue. Fintan264 (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
They definitely don't have squad numbers in the Northern Premier League but it's very hard to find a source confirming it. How can anyone have an issue with the fact that they don't have squad numbers? BigDom19:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the GA review it appears that the reviewer was slightly confused and thought that the claim was that in the Northern League the players don't wear numbers on their shirts at all. I have tried to clear this up there.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
No static person/number combination you mean or no numbers at all? How does the referee handle yellow cars then? It it "bit big guy with that schnautzer and the blone long hair" :) -Koppapa (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
"Squad numbering" refers to the practice of assigning a specific number to each player at the start of the season which he then always wears, so you could have a team wearing 1, 4, 6, 8, 13, 19, 22, 25, 31, 44 and 56. This only happens at the professional level. At semi-pro/amateur levels, the eleven players who start each match simply wear numbers 1-11, no matter who they might be. Over the course of the season, ten different players might wear number 9. Does that make sense........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd advise removing the line from the article entirely. The Scottish First Division doesn't even use squad numbers: it's hardly some obscurity from the depths of non-league. If it's genuinely important to note then we should add support for that to the squad list template system itself, as I believe I proposed in the past. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk07:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we could create a variant of the squad list template without a "squad number" column for leagues that don't use a numbering system. BigDom (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Has this article actually been through the Good Article Review process because I cant seem to find anywhere where it has. Besides it barely meets the criteria anyway. –LiamTaylor– 12:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
If you have found something worth adding, then do so. I personally would have expanded on his sending offs, against who and when, but maybe reliable sources weren't available at the time because it happened more than a decade ago. Argyle 4 Lifetalk18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
How can this image have valid fair use rationales for each individual Manchester City season going back to 2000-01? Surely its use on those articles would be purely decorative, making the fair use rationales invalid? – PeeJay13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The image is not directly discussed in the seasons articles and as such is purely decorative. That the rational said "and illustrates the club's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." would seem to confirm that. It certainly doesn't meet the WP:NFCC guidelines in the seasons articles. Woody (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
First off, this is an inappropriate place to be discussing a specific club's .svg file. It is perhaps an appropriate place for discussing .svg files in general, such as how they apply across all clubs, but NOT the file of one specific club. That discussion ONLY belongs on the Talk page of the file in question. Holding a discussion such as this one here without even an editor of the article(s) in question being invited to contribute achieves what exactly? Wikipedia is about editors working together constructively to achieve concensus on issues, thereby developing better articles across the whole of the encyclopedia. It is not about a few petty-minded editors gathering together in cabals behind the backs of others in order to work out how they can destructively remove or clobber the positive efforts of those other editors.
Your opinion on this topic, PeeJay, is purely that ... your POV opinion. Your POV on matters does not give you carte blanche to run around Wikipedia reverting everything you might not understand or don't agree with, it only gives you the right to input your opinion on issues along with those of other editors who may be more knowledgeable than yourself on some matters. What you stated above clearly shows you do not fully understand the issue at hand. If instead of boorishly removing the MCFC .svg files you had stopped instead to read them you would have seen the rationale for their use. If the rationale was merely whether the image is mentioned or discussed in the article in question then the main Man. United article currently fails that criterion. The other Man. United articles in which the logo is used may also fail it too, but I couldn't be bothered to go check. Consequently, if what you state is correct, the Man. United logo should by rights be removed from that article immediately as its current use only serves a "purely decorative" purpose, to use your own phraseology.
If I was an equally petty-minded editor as you are, Pee Jay, I would go do just that. But I'm not. I would personally like to see the Man. United articles - in fact the articles of all the other football clubs - achieve the same quality as the Man. City articles, rather than spend all my time thinking and scheming about ways to regress the information in the articles of rival clubs in order to get one over on them. In the past I've had a few go-arounds with the people that police the use of NFM images on Wikipedia and what resulted at the end of it was .svg files that met their muster, otherwise they would not have remained in place for the last 6 months or more. They would have been pulled down by people more knowledgeable than you are on this matter within a week. The mentioning of the logo in the article is just one of a number of criteria that the .svg rationale must meet. And for your information, there is indeed text in all the MCFC season articles that mentions the logo, unlike the MUFC article.
Wikipedia currently has an "article incubation trial" effort running in order to encourage new editors to stick around and positively contribute rather than be scared off by all the confrontation they see taking place here. It is exactly your boorish style of revert-first discuss-later-if-at-all confrontational partisan editing style, Pee Jay, that that undertaking is ultimately designed to counter. IMO your editing style is a big problem here. You need to learn respect for other editors and their efforts and not spend all your time scheming of ways to regress everything that is not Man. United related. Perhaps your time would be more constructively spent if you channeled your energies into making the Man. United articles better rather than trying to make all the other football club articles worse? Mancini's Lasagne invite to HarryTalk17:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I first offer my apologies for not notifying you of this thread MLItH, I had your talk page open in a tab but I got distracted my one of my own article projects. I'm sure that the intention of holding the discussion here was not to exclude you, it was to invite the opinion of other editors who may be informed about the issues surrounding discussions. Image pages are not watched by very many people so most discussions take place in more centralised boards so this would be one of the best places for the discussion. If you would like, we can open up a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review where more editors from outside FOOTY could get involved. Editors here will have experience dealing with these kind of issues in these articles as they tend to have come up before.
On to the issue at hand, looking at the logos guidelines and WP:NFCC, I have concerns over NFCC point 8, and possibly 1. There is no contextual significance for the image in the seasons articles, it is purely decorative, particularly given the main thrust of the FUR is that they are needed to "illustrate[s] the club's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." Wikipedia is not the place for propogating City's branding message. Words alone can adequately inform the reader that this is the page for Manchester City F.C. seasons. So, again, I am sorry if you felt removed from this discussion or if you felt persecuted in anyway. That was certainly not my intention in discussing this issue here, Woody (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to offer me your apologies, Woody, because you did not start this topic. Pee Jay did. But AFTER he reverted, NOT before. That's not an approach conducive to harmonious editing IMO.
"Image pages are not watched by very many people so most discussions take place in more centralised boards so this would be one of the best places for the discussion." You are simply rationalizing inappropriate behavior. Ignorance of how things are meant to be done on Wikipedia is no excuse for editors not following proper protocol. Wikipedia is quite clear in its guidance of what topics get discussed where. I do not follow this page because there is no need for me to do so. For instance, if an issue crops up pertaining to a MCFC article the Talk page of that article is where it should be discussed. I've got better things to do than continually browsing all Wikipedia Talk Pages just on the off chance that something pertaining to MCFC crops up. BTW, to go and invite me to participate on this page AFTER I'm already here participating achieves what exactly?
You are also wrong about my reverting those edits being edit warring ... Pee Jay, in continually removing thosec files, is the one that is edit warring under Wikipedia guidance. If you try and change the status quo with an edit, and other editors disapprove of your edit and revert it, for you to go ahead and simply redo it again as if the reversion did not happen, is the beginning of an edit war. Technically, the sequence has to be repeated 3 times under the 3RR rule, but if the person that initially changed the status quo keeps on through that cycle, it will be his fourth repost of the third reversion that violates 3RR. We just went through this cycle with Digirami. Those logos in the MCFC season articles have been established for 6 months now. Pee Jay is the one breaking the status quo. I'm quite entitled to revert if I don't think he has established his case, which I don't as of yet. If the cycle continues beyond 3RR he'll be the one in violation. I'm afraid, Woody, you are already demonstrating some bias in this issue with that comment. I'm not saying that I intend to continually revert. I'm simply pointing out to you that you really should not pontificate to other editors when you are wrong on an issue.
As for opening up a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review I think we should discuss it here first so that we know exactly what the issues are (if there are any in the end) so that we can raise a very specific question (or set of questions) over there, rather than just create a big free-for-all discussion over there right now where 90% of the participants won't even be focused or knowlegeable about the topic at hand.
"can we please try and keep this discussion partisan." Personally, I would like to break the mould for these sort of discussions just for a change and have a completely non-partisan discussion here instead. The partisan nature of these sorts of interchanges is a big part of my issue here. When an editor (whose affiliations to one club are well-known) spends all his editing time removing material from a rival club's articles his integrity as a Wikipedia editor is completely blown. It is similar to lying under oath in a court of law ... once you have been caught perjuring yourself your whole integrity as a witness becomes questionable and the judge will advise the jury that they should ignore (or take with a large grain of salt) the remainder of that person's testimony. Exactly the same principle applies here.
Let me now address your "concerns over NFCC point 8, and possibly 1." Point 1 is a non-issue. If there were any free versions of the logos available, NFM use approval would not be granted for ANY Wikipedia article on football, because they could use the freely available logo versions instead. So on that basis they are approved, which means that point 1 is not relevant here (because the approved current use of such logos on Wikipedia attests to the fact that point 1 is satisfied WRT there being no free alternatives available). The real issue here is how extensively these approved NFM logos can be so used ... in just one, two or three articles, or even more? You guys all appear to believe there is some set limit on this, but there isn't. There is a rule that states you cannot spatter the logos all over the place in an article if you use it - it can still only be used once in the Infobox. But that rule is not being broken here. However, some appear to be misapplying that limit on multiple use within an article to a limit on articles themselves - viz. if you cannot use such a logo multiple times within an article, then that means you cannot use the logo in multiple articles, or that the use must be confined to only a very few. It is my understanding that that is not the case ... each article has to be adjudged based on its own merits, and if 50 articles meet the criteria then 50 articles can contain the logo.
Let me now post the text of point 8 here so we can all see it. It states: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. What that really boils down to - in order to justify using these logos at all - is that the logos can be used because they significantly help the reader to differentiate between the thousands of similar-looking sports club articles on Wikipedia. No one needs to see the Manchester United logo in order to better understand the topic of Manchester United. Its use in such an article is justified because it aids the reader to immediately recognize that he has accessed the Manchester United article ... as opposed to the Chelsea article or the Barcelona article, etc. If there were only five football club articles on Wikipedia you probably could not even justify that use. But worldwide there are now thousands of such similar looking articles all named XXXXX F.C. or F.C. XXXXX, etc. That is where the logo's use "increases the readers' understanding of the topic" and where its "omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
Without putting a lot of time into investigating this, it is my impression from casually browsing the articles of other (mostly Premier League) clubs over the past year or so that very, very few of them contain text that specifically discusses the logo in any way. If that is the sole criterion for inclusion then the logos need to be removed from 95% of the club articles right now, in the same manner that Pee Jay has just removed them from the MCFC season articles. It is a criterion for inclusion, as is club branding, but very few of the extant articles currently exploit those criteria to justify the logo inclusion. It is primarily point 8 above that justifies the use of the various club NFM logos across the board. But if their use is justified because they are a large help to the reader in discriminating between the various similar main articles, then their use is also justified in the current season articles for each club because they provide significant help to the reader in discriminating between these various similar articles too, and almost every football club that has a main Wikipedia article also has a current season article.
So does this justify the use of the logos in every season article on Wikipedia? Absolutely not, for the same reason that the logos would not be justified in any football club article if there were only five club articles on Wikipedia (unless, of course, some of those few articles were specifically mentioning the logo in the article and/or constructively using it to establish club branding, which as we've seen, most extant articles rarely ever do). Thus an article entitled "1898–99 Manchester City F.C. season" would most likely not justify having a MCFC logo because there are (I'm assuming here) very few other "1898–99 season" articles to differentiate it from. Which is why only the most recent MCFC season articles have the logo added. Only the Big Four clubs plus a few others, such as City and Newcastle, have season articles in article space even going back to only 2000. So I think the cutoff threshold becomes relatively recently. If you argued it should be 2005 instead I would probably not disagree. However that is getting ahead of ourselves here.
That's all I have time for right now, but I hope that helped. One final thing you guys should be aware of when discussing this topic, is that if you all argue that it is the fact that a club article contains branding and/or textual references that primarily justify the use of the NFM logo, you may find that 95% or more of the extant club articles will end up losing their current logo for failure to meet those criteria. There is simply a common misassumption that all the football club articles automatically satisfy those criteria, but few actually do. So be very careful about what you wish for here. Instead of depriving MCFC of its few season article logos you may find that you've just argued the case for removing the logos from all of your own clubs' articles instead. Mancini's Lasagne invite to HarryTalk22:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong. I suggest you read WP:Logos, which states quite clearly that logos can be used under fair-use only in articles specifically about the organisation they represent. Hence it is fine to have the logo on Manchester City F.C. (or any other club article) but not in season articles. BigDom22:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You are talking to, and about, some experienced editors of Wikipedia: to say that we don't know where things are discussed is rather naive. Issues with wider consequences are discussed on more visible noticeboards such as here. This issue boils down to logos in seasons articles and the article where the issue has sprung up, in this case MCFC, is irrelavent. Also, to state that Wikipedia:Non-free content review will be full of people who aren't knowledgable on the topic again shows naivety. The issue is not football, MCFC, it is the interpretation of the NFCC, where that board will be the perfect place to find knowledgable editors. You should have been notified that this discussion was taking place hence why you don't have to "look around Wikipedia." I believe that you have misinterpreted and misunderstood the intentions of NFCC. They are not to facilitate the illustration of articles or distinguish them from other articles. Non-free images, ie images for which we don't own the copyright, cannot be used simply for the purposes of distinguishing it from other articles. I think you do mankind in general a disservice by suggesting that they can't read an article title. Take your argument to Wikipedia:Non-free content review and see where it gets you. Woody (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"Also, to state that Wikipedia:Non-free content review will be full of people who aren't knowledgable on the topic again shows naivety." I didn't say that. What I said, or what I meant to say despite how you chose to interpret it, is that it would be us that would be the unfocused Yahoos imposing on their time right now. And how do you reconcile calling me naive with this? Do black pots and kettles mean anything to you? And yes, I was notified of this discussion, but it was in a reversion edit summary. My point is that that was totally inappropriate. But that was probably me just being naive again. I'm sure you'll find some way to rationalize it? Mancini's Lasagne invite to HarryTalk02:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That is not how I read your comment, perhaps erroneously then. I don't see calling someone naive as being an egregious personal attack, particularly within the context of this discussion but everyone has their own versions of what consitutes a personal attack. It was not my intention to attack you. My first comment here was to apologise for not making you aware of this discussion. I'm well aware that you weren't aware about it and that was inappropriate. But this is the right place for this discussion and that was the point I was making and continue to make. That you to continue to argue that it isn't the right place is what has drawn my exasperation. Note I have left a note on NFCC review to invite opinions. Can we return to the point at hand here, ie the images and the NFCC, and put the technicalities and mud-slinging to rest? Woody (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I obviously have read WP:Logos. The situation is not as cut and dried as you make it sound. If we create an article on IBM we can use an NFM logo in it. But what happens when the article gets so unmanageably large that we have to split it into two articles, IBM1 and IBM2. Which one gets the logo? The answer is both are entitled to the logo not just one of them. The issue is exactly the same with the season articles. What happens when the amount of information about a club grows so extensive that some of it has to be broken off into a new article. Which one gets the logo? When the first club articles were created the current season info. could possibly have been contained in the same article. To break the season articles off from the main article is an obvious divide. Note that I'm not claiming that all, if any, club and season articles evolved in that manner. I'm only stating that its the same principle. Mancini's Lasagne invite to HarryTalk22:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not discussing this any more as I just can't take you seriously now you've resorted to making things up. Articles about clubs are obviously more important than individual seasons. Your claim that season articles receive more page views is just plain wrong. The MCFC article was viewed by almost 150,000 more people than the 2010-11 MCFC season article, in the last month alone. BigDom23:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You've gone on off on some sort of tangent in regards to this. But, to address one thing you did bring up... If an article gets too big that it does need to be split in more articles, the logo stays on the main page. You don't see the Real Madrid logo splashed on related pages such as history, statistics, or list of players. And yes, the main article always gets more attention and views than a club season article. Using Real Madrid as an example again, the main articles had 270953 views in the past 30 days while their current season article had 32937 views in that same time frame. (FYI, the stats for MCFC and its current season article are 141096 and 9056, respectively.) Also, do not pretend that you are the only one who understand the policies in question. It does nothing to advance your points and only further solidifies the opposition toward you. Assume good faith and know that we wouldn't be having this discussion if we did not know what we/they were talking about. Digirami (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I probably overstretched there, so I retracted that last paragraph so that it does not distract from the point made in the first one. I still don't believe that regular soccer fans access the main articles more than the current season articles ... unless it is because they only bookmark the main article knowing they can easily get to the other one via the "current season" link. In which case those stats. would be distorted because many of the hits on the main article are simply folk passing through on the way to the other one. I'm not saying it is that way; I'm just throwing that thought out there. Sometimes stats. can be misleading. Mancini's Lasagne invite to HarryTalk02:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
No, no and no. There is a criminal failure on this website to understand what "Original Research" means. Original Research isn't "anything no-one has written before". I bet you that no-one before has previously written this sum before: 6453243589734 + 234980274. Does that make it Original Research? Absolutely not. Original Research is about hypothesising theories and adding your own evidence to support it without anything to back you up. If that article had a follow-up section saying that the trend towards using the away kit more than the third kit indicates that the City board hate the colour white, THAT would be Original Research. Without a theory, there can be no claim of OR. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:No original research/history#History of the core policies. I apologise if my tone seemed aggressive - I assure you I did not mean it - but I have seen OR misquoted in the region of 40-50 times by editors seeking to use it in arguments, and it is generally misused to advocate the (frankly false) line of "Wikipedia Should Contain No Mathematics". Any sort of tallying that hasn't been done elsewhere gets accused of being OR, when it simply is not. Falastur2Talk23:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, the videos used to reference the section seem to come from City's own website. Furthermore, it's also OR because it relies on you making your own observations of the videos. If the kit stats were already present somewhere else and you simply collated them, that wouldn't be so bad, but this is pure OR. – PeeJay22:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Football League Presidents
Can somebody expand upon this section please? I'm unable to find much more information.
While I have the book published to mark the League's centenary, it was published in ...1988, so not much help. It might be of slight use so I'll take a look when I get the time. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Formation name needs changing on formation page
On the formation page (association football) the MM formation is mistakenly termed as a WW. This is confusing because the formation is a 3-2-3-2, and even says so in the article. By this logic, the notorious WM formation (a 3-2-2-3) would be referred to as a MW, which is certainly not correct. The actual article is accurate for the most part (though I'm not comfortable with the view that Bukovi turned the WM "upside down"), but the MM title is much truer and credible. Bronaldinho (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I did post my concern on the discussion page of the article (if you go there I'm at the bottom) but all I got back was a reply that tried to contend my point. I won't go into the whole reply but basically the person replied with a link that actually affirmed my argument. I'm new so I apologize if I post anything irrelevant or not needed on the talk page. At the same time though I think I know and support football enough to become a good contributor to this project. I'm still lacking some of the technical understanding of editing so any help will be greatly appreciated. Bronaldinho (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
His article says that he is of Somali descent and is of Black African descent. I'm pretty sure both are not true and anyways, they're unreferenced. Can anyone confirm? TonyStarks (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The norm for cases like this appears to be birth month, so if that can be determined for both players, that's what I would go with. Failing that, I would suggest maybe using place of birth instead. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
A much simpler solution exists fortunately - the Barnsley player's name is spelled as "Jordan Clark" on the BBC and the club official website, so I think the page can safely be moved without the need for awkward disambiguation. J Mo 101 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I did adeed top mexican, argentinian and brazilian nationals leagues list to that table, maybe somebody can add another one base on IFFS: Strongest National League in the World, also my english suck, and I hope this talk page of this wikiproject is the right place to say that, sorry if I broke some rule--Feroang (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Also I think "we" can do a "only football version", a article like "Assoc.. football season(s)" with a long and fast to read table that show how tournament go every years by months, and a "nationals team 4 year season", with National Continental Cup, Qualifications to WC (men, womens, U-20), Olympics, Confederation Cup and and WC (men women, u- ); the 4-year-cycle is near clear so somebody can do a easy reable table, or try--Feroang (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
You also have the information wrong. Both the Mexican and Argentine Primera have a year long season like the Premier League. The only difference is that the Primeras have two tournaments in one season. I'll correct that. Digirami (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
They don't have a year-long season like the Premier League. Although relegation is determined by an Apertura+Clausura in two different years, qualification to Libertadores depends on a Clausura+Apertura in a single year. Sudamericana depends on Apertura+Clausura in two different years like relegation. Well this goes for Argentina. The best way I can describe it is that it's mixed between two seasons. I don't know about Mexico.--MicroX (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
They are like the Premier League in that they both, give or take a few weeks, run within the same time frame (fall to spring). The AFA publishes regulations for a season that runs with that time frame. That's why the fall tournament is called Apertura and the spring tournament is called the Clausura; they "open" and "close" the season (you very well known this). But it is not two seasons as it was before in the article. That's where it was wrong. Libertadores and Sudamericana qualification have no bearing on where the season starts and end. Digirami (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a Apertura champion team, and another Clausura champion team, they do not play a final for something like season/year championsip, there are 2 seasons in Argentina.--Feroang (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
You're confusing tournament with season. It's a common mistake. But the fact still remains that Argentina and Mexico have two tournaments in one season. It's that simple. Digirami (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Fb-rbr-position template
The {{Fb_rbr_position}} ("Round-by-round position") template produces a "red/pink" background for 15th & 16th places. See here for an example. See also the current season for Southampton (here) where 5th places and upwards are shown in various shades of green/blue, although the equivalent for QPR (here) gives second place in silver, as expected. I can't see why the problem is arising - can someone fix it? Thanks. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Well I did 15, Digirami seems to have beaten me to 16. Looking into the pos 2 colour differences--ClubOranjeT10:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
As for colour differences in positions 1-6, there are to templates use: {{Fb3_rbr_position}} and {{Fb_rbr_position}}. The first uses gold and silver for 1 and 2, then blue for 3-6. The latter only does gold silver bronze. they use sub-templates for this, so you only need to point at the appropriate one of those listed above. An IP had edited the sub-templates to cause the varying shades earlier.--ClubOranjeT10:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello project. This just popped up on my watchlist earlier today, where it was considered that actual league names be removed and replaced with "Second tier of English football" (etc) pipelinked back to the actual league. Of course, this may be a good idea but I wondered what we thought on a project level because we really ought to be consistent throughout all of our project's English league articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I do similarly at Birmingham City F.C.#Honours, such as they are, with (level 2) in brackets after. For the divisions, I use the historically-correct name of the division and link to the article about that division at that time, so I'd link the 1995 Division Two (level 3) to Football League Second Division rather than to the anachronistic Football League One.
Incidentally, someone needs to fix that section off TRM's watchlist: the Third Division South wasn't the fourth tier of English football... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I've undone that particular change so there's no actual error in it. Perhaps once we get more of a consensus on how this is done we can then start to implement it further, rather than just changing one article of many dozens in this way. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
One big problem you've got here is that if we standardised on it you've got a problem with lower levels on the pyramid which may have moved about over the years. In general I think we're okay relying on context: so long as we use the name a league had at the time we should be okay. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If I'm referring to a league generally, say within a player article, I would normally just list the name of the league direct. If I'm doing a list of club honours I have sometimes just put the tier in (e.g. [1]) although other times I have put in brackets after the seasons the name of the league at the time [2] - perhaps the latter is better for clarity. Eldumpo (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
That's quite an interesting article. I think that "age-cheating" is not a commonly used term, though I'm struggling to think of a more suitable title. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
To my mind, the word controversial implies no judgement, it simply indicates that something is a matter of debate. Never understood the wiki community's aversion to it. Kevin McE (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
If anyone wants to RM/CfD the above category I created, go for it, as long as an appropriate place/name can be found for these kind of articles that exist. GiantSnowman03:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Kit display in infoboxes: best practices
It occurred to me looking at Tottenham Hotspur F.C. that we seem to have allowed for extremely detailed kit mockups to be added to some Premier League articles. Looking at Template talk:Football kit/doc, it looks like this occurred around August last year (indeed I've actually commented on that discussion, though I don't remember seeing the part about allowing for more detailed kits). Was there a bigger discussion about this? Is it something that people are generally aware of? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
While it would be ideal to keep templates as basic as possible (so they can be used on as many teams as possible), I don't see any harm in having more-detailed ones - after all, we as a Project and an Encyclopedia are aiming to be as accurate as possible, surely? One concern, however, is the copyright/licensing considerations of kits that use logos/sponsors etc. GiantSnowman17:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe the chief concern is that shirt designs are copyrighted. By keeping to a very basic paper doll scheme we avoid those concerns (as "light blue shirt and white shorts" cannot be copyrighted, for instance). Importantly, there was consensus for the previous position, and I'm struggling to locate consensus for the new one (save for my own inadvertent blessing of it). Should there be none I would propose an immediate drive to revert to the old consensus to ensure the copyright problem goes away. That may extend to removing applicable files on Commons. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk20:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Shall we try to re-establish consensus here before implementing anything? I'm more than happy to keep to the basic kit designs templates. GiantSnowman03:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
He will make his 1000th appearance on Saturday according to the BBC, yet our (sourced) total is in the 920s. Could someone else have a look at this to see where our table is incorrect? Thanks. The only things I could think of were either Football League Trophy appearances when he was in the lower leagues, or if the 1000 figure includes his 40 Scotland international caps. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I think according to Burnley it includes League (and Playoffs), FA Cup, League Cup, FL Trophy games, internationals, and two matches against Aldershot in the 1991–92 season that were expunged but that the Football League have given him permission to include in the total. I don't know whether that would add up to 1000, but I can't think of any other games he could have played. BigDom (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Using the not always perfect Soccerbase, his play-off appearances for Preston have not been included in our table. 2 in 1998/99, 3 in 2000/01, 1 in 2004/05 and 2 in 2005/06. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
But soccerbase still only has 952, 23 of which were not league, FA Cup or League Cup. Add in the 40 international matches and 2 games against Aldershot and it is still 5 short. County Cup or something similar? Kevin McE (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hugman's 2006/07 PFA Who's Who book gives:
Scunthorpe: 13+4 "other" apps, compared with Soccerbase's 13+2
Luton: 146+4 league, 7+1 FA Cup, 6+2 other, compared with Soccerbase's 149+4, 5+1, 3+1 (the discrepancy of 3 in the league will be playoff apps that Soccerbase hasn't separated out)
which produces the 5 you reckon you're short (2 "other" for Scunthorpe and 2 FA Cup and an "other" for Luton). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Club History Articles cut-off point
Anyone have any idea what the consensus is for the cut off point for clubs having a separate article for their history like "History of Template F.C."? Is it just a case of if the team is notable and the article is well referenced? Thanks. Delusion23 (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if there has been specific previous consensus, but I would work along the lines of, if it is a notable club it can have an article, any club article can (and probably should) have a history section, if the history section gets too big, or the article gets to big in general, then it should be OK to summarise the history on the main article page with a section hat of "Main article : Histoy of Template FC" and move the bulk to a separate article. I don't believe there should be a specific cut-off point as far as level of pyramid because a club might be very notable or have a significant history despite never making it to the highest echelons.--ClubOranjeT10:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm of similar thinking to ClubOranje. The "cut-off" point is the usual guidelines per WP:SUMMARY. The history should be kept in the main article until it becomes too big or disproportionate. There shouldn't be any stubs as History of template FC, they should be merged into the history article until such time as they are big enough to warrant their own article. Woody (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I know Argyle 4 Life has recently made the page History of Plymouth Argyle F.C. but there is no history section left on the main Plymouth Argyle page. I thought if you made a History article for a club you would take the bulk of the info, not the whole lot. Could someone explain.... –LiamTaylor– 09:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure Argyle 4 Life is organising a summary history as we speak ;-). Seriously, Argyle 4 Life is a dedicate contributor with a special passion for Plymouth Argyle, and I personally have faith the section will have a summary to supplement the main article link before you know it. --ClubOranjeT11:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I know he's a good editor I was just checking that there was going to be a summary and whether there had to be one with a History article. thanks for the reply anyway. –LiamTaylor– 12:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
A substantial history section is on my "to do list" because I want to get the article featured in the future (not sure when, but it's a goal), but I'm currently waiting for some more published material to arrive. I want to be certain that I'm not missing anything before I attempt a write-up. The history section that was there had become far too big and it was ridiculously unbalanced so, having remembered Southend United's history has been like it for quite some time, I decided it would be best to move it all for the time being. If a brief summary has to be there in the mean time then I will see what I can do, but it won't be spectacular. Argyle 4 Lifetalk19:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Fifa World Cup Red link players
Hello. I'm trying to learn to write entries for the World Cup football on Wikipedia. I have already created some items, as you can see in my contributions, but my style is not perfect. I wanted to ask, where can I improve my style and how do I add information to the biography of players when they are many, many years ago where there are very few information on the web Alexxander3000 (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I see you have received advice from someone already which is good. I would have recommended Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation and National Football Teams as good sources, but I see that you've got them covered. I would recommend that you use the newer version of Template:Infobox football biography here. The one you have been using is an older version. I'd also recommend creating talk pages for the articles you create and tag them using Project templates. I have them both here so that I can copy and paste them into an article easily. Concerning style, the best advice I can give you is to look at different articles. Last year, I wanted to get this article featured so I looked here to see what styles and methods were being used. Your writing will improve as time goes on. That was certainly the case for me. Argyle 4 Lifetalk03:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
You would sort of think you could work off WP:MOSBIO, but that is all a bit vague really. While I see nothing specifically wrong with including POB in DOB bracketed section, I feel such information is better represented in prose; ie, Giant Snowman was born in Somehwere, Canada, and grew up to be a worthy Wikipedian...and now that I think about it, I vaguely recall seeing such a guideline somewhere, but now that I look for such guidelines I cannot find them ;-(--ClubOranjeT12:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks from me as well. When I was new to Wikipedia, I remember including place of birth in articles that I created and then a while later I stopped including it, having seen the style of others. It's good to know that I made the correct choice. Argyle 4 Lifetalk01:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Why do we include only domestic league matches in infobox? In my opinion it would be better to include matches in all official competitions (as in career statistics section). TheBiggestFootballFan (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Has been discussed many times before, here is a link to one of the more recent discussions which summarises quite well, but if you search the archives you;ll find many more.--ClubOranjeT11:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been covered but I haven't been around much for a long while. The following is one example of many. 1960–61 Football League First Division contains no additional information than what is available in the parent article 1960–61 Football League and is essentially a content fork. Are there any objections in such cases to me creating a redirect back to the parent article? Of course, if the parent article gets too large, then we can split/summarise accordingly. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
And welcome back from me as well. I'd already been redirecting them back, think I got as far as 1950-odd before going away and doing something more interesting instead. You're more than welcome to take over. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The "user" i mention in the message title has been thoroughly discussed and "acted upon", but very little has been said about User:Pararubbas (at least EVERY time i bring him up here, he's a football vandal, 60+ socks!!), beats me why...
Well, you teammates better want to keep your eye on this "user", from Norway: he also "contributes" solely (at least from what i know) with anon addresses, i have reported the last one (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.88.13.239) to an administrator, who has issued another warning.
What does this "user" do? As seen for instance in Santi Cazorla, Joan Capdevila and Raúl Tamudo, he does not seem to like B teams in box, those go out because he says so! Also, if he "spots" any national team he finds "odd" (U-21, U-23, etc), he removes those as well. What a vandal!! Attentively, you have been briefed - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
We know: we put reminders and warnings on their talkpages rather than shouting threats at them on editnotes and then running to this page. Take a look at WP:R Van. Kevin McE (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Project. Not overly keen on these pages, seem to display an overwhelming level of recentism, but can you all have a look at this one and tell me if I'm going bonkers. Entries like 5 Feb, 19 March, 2, 9 and 16 April contain way too much info. I thought these were supposed to be the "major events" in English football throughout the season. Anyone agree we should crop it back a bit? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS would apply here. Major events would be sackings, big money transfers, propotions + relegations etc. - not just a bunch of match reports. Remove with my blessing! GiantSnowman18:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Well yes, I completely agree. I didn't want to take action without some kind of discussion, I'm not sure how frequently regulars here update that article if ever... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there teammates, i am back from the dead (24-hr block, fair in light of WP guidelines), here's this:
User 98.229.166.205 (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.229.166.205) still continues to NOT ALLOW us to write final years for Portuguese players' international careers, he feels every single one of them needs to hold a press conference and say so, aside of all the logic attached. How many people think Nuno Gomes will never play with the national team again raise your hand (this season, the 35-year old appeared in FIVE league games for Benfica, not sure if he totalled 50 minutes)...Portugal manager Paulo Bento, according to this user, has stated he counts on Gomes for the future, that's diplomacy from where i come from, nothing else...However, this user has angrily reverted stuff when people have inserted a final year in the infobox, i have just been blocked for the first time, cannot say i appreciated the experience much (but i repeat the block was deserved), if this situation escalates, i know who will be on the losing end, i'll leave it be, hurray for incomplete info!
This brings me to a related item, also courtesy of same user (by the way, i have notified the user on both discussions i have raised here - this being the second - and messaged him several times, he says "talk to the hand", nothing besides edit summaries, which are growing in anger): he also adds national team years whenever a player is called, even if he does not make debut (i know a similar discussion was raised in the past, the one referring to players who had never been capped, only called up).
See for instance Hugo Ventura Ferreira Moura Guedes: was called for two friendlies in 2011, as third-goalkeeper (finally did not sit on the bench on either occasion!) but the anon user writes "2011-" in box nonetheless. Given the competition for the goalie position in my country (Eduardo Carvalho (28 years), Rui Patrício (23) and Beto (28)), what if Ventura only makes international debut - if he makes it - in 2016? Should his box read "2011-" or "2016-"?
My view is that generally final years should not be written in for the national team years in infobox unless the player has stated they are retiring from international football or if perhaps the manager/FA have stated he won't play any more. Obviously, this would only apply whilst the player was still with a club. There could be rare instances where a player has got injured and is now playing at a very low level - it would be reasonable to add in final years then. Regarding your question about whether call-ups should get added, there was some extensive discussion on this and I believe the 'outcome' is that Chris Cunningham was going to look at adding parameters to cover this into a future version of the player infobox. Eldumpo (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Eldumpo, except for the case where the player has retired from club football as well or if the player has not been on either a club or national side for several years. For instance Jeff Clarke (Canadian soccer) has never officially announced that he will not play for the Canadian national side again, although he did tell me in a private conversation that he wouldn't, but he hasn't played for the second division Whitecaps for two years going onto the third now, and so we can assume that he's not going back to the national team either. His age is also a factor, but there are a few other 33-year-old players at the national level. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Eldumpo and Walter. Players remain eligible for national teams at all times, unless they have retired or expressly stated that they wish to not be picked for international duty. Having closed years indicates that either the player has finished his international career, when this might not always be the case. Not playing for the national team for a few years doesn't mean that he will never play again. I always leave open-ended international dates, unless there is a clear source indicating that the player has retired, expressed a wish not to be picked, or is no longer eligible for the team (being too old for a youth team, or switching nationalities for example). JonBroxton (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
So that pretty much settles it in item #1, we should leave open years unless a player clearly states "he's leaving". I will comply. But how about item #2? If a player has not made debut, why should we insert year in box? I mean, in the case of Ventura, he was called up, but then did not even make the bench! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with Chris on this. I allways touth that we should have a separate section, or page, for this commonly occuring questions. New editors just don´t have time to read all discussions here that happend during years, and to be honest, I think neither us know for sure what was decided in all of them, and much less where those discussions are now. Common questions should be discussed (meaning, voted, agreed...) again and the decition should be made easily accesible. FkpCascais (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I have a clear basis for considering a player's international career over: if they haven't been selected since the last campaign but one (in this case, Euro 2008). That's what I use for List of Germany international footballers - it seems reasonable, clear, and consistent. If the player returns to the fold, there's no reason why it can't be re-opened. A figure like 2003- suggests something is current, and listing a player like Michael Owen with 198- would misleadingly suggest he's still part of the England setup. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This dicussion seemed to lean towards under-21/20 tournaments organised by AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, OFC and UEFA as being acceptable, providing that the majority of links are blue. As it stands, templates like this one aren't justifiable at all. Argyle 4 Lifetalk06:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The point of a template is to link articles. As a rule of thumb, if there are articles to be linked, then it's should be OK - if not, then no. That goes with senior templates as well. GiantSnowman13:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Tony brought this up, i would also like to refer one category i found in Rafik Halliche, "ALGERIAN U-23 FOOTBALLERS". How notable is that as, in all my years of football editing, this is the ONLY country that has that as a category (many European countries have the "X U-21 FOOTBALLERS" in their players tough, but that's it)? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
U23 categories probably are appropriate for players who played in that age group when it was common (early 80s at a guess?) but the recentist nature of wiki probably means that won't happen. Current U23 teams are essentially the Olympic squad: I see no reason why that shouldn't be a category (including players in qualification events that have the same age restrictions), but as the Olympic team is not exclusively U23, the category name should not give that impression. Indeed, the lead of the Algerian U23 category has a link [[Algeria Olympic football team|Algerian Under-23 National Team]] making clear that this is the case here. Suggest rename cat, and allow population of its equivalents. Kevin McE (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to add to the U23 debate, I added a lot of those players to the Algeria U23 category since U23 is still a very common national team in African football for the simple fact that we only have U17, U20 and U23 in Africa as opposed to categories for almost every group like they have in Europe. Competitions that use U23 are the Pre-Olympic tournament (qualifiers for Olympics), All-Africa Games, and the regional tournaments (UNAF, WAFU, CECAFA, etc.). So with that said .. I'm definitely against renaming it :D. TonyStarks (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems that we have another anonymous football fan. Some of the edits seem OK. Other are pure vandalism such as removing 2002 FIFA World Cup from the succession boxes of the world cup articles before and after it. If someone with a bit more experience could verify Special:Contributions/79.108.0.125, that would be greatly appreciated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Kenny Shiels
Wonder if someone with a bit more experience would have a look at Kenny Shiels the article is a total mess.17:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
Definitely, good find. I have tagged it as a sock, and will be raising the issue at WP:ANI, again, to see if we can't get a range block or something. GiantSnowman19:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've tagged them as well. If you - or anybody else - find any more, simply add {{IPsock|Zombie433}} to the IP User page. Cheers, GiantSnowman22:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this him as well? I think I remember unsourced squads of national teams that haven't played for some years, in a non-standard format, was part of his modus operandi. Kevin McE (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys. Im really glad to see u finally take this topic serious. Is there anything planned to get rid of as many as possible of his fake edits? Deleting unsourced articles about obscure footballers, removing unsourced appearances etc.? Unfortunatley I still find regularly nonsense in random articles, and those info spreads also into other Wikipedia projects... At least a bot-generated list of zombie-created pages should be possible... --Ureinwohner (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Team Dubai
Just a heads up - according to this news piece, some businessmen from Dubai have purchased a Spanish La Liga team (believed to be Real Zaragoza) and will rename it 'Team Dubai' - so get ready for pagemoves, link fixing, vandalism etc. Cheers, GiantSnowman17:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
If you guys see some club being renamed into FkpCascais (pro name: FKP Cascais) , well, I guess you´ll all know where I spent my honey :)
Regarding the case you exposed, by making google search (zaragoza+club+dubai) there are already many news articles claiming to be Zaragoza the one in question. FkpCascais (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I created the list of Nelson seasons on the basis that the club used to play in the Football League and notability is not temporary. BigDom (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The speedy's been declined. I can't see any evidence of them having played in the DFB Pokal though (or usual rule of thumb for footy clubs) - you could try a PROD but this will probably have to go to AfD just so we can gain a consensus for any future deletions of low-level German clubs. —BETTIA—talk15:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It's been PRODed and if you want to take it to Afd, feel free by all means and I shall also join the discussion.–LiamTaylor– 16:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
nice and great image, but "for A international matches, the IFAB has decided to set a fixed size of 105 metres long and 68 metres wide", somebody (I dont now how) should add something like "105 metres for A international matches" with the current or instead of "90-120 m" and "100-130yds". and "68 metres for A international matches" with the current or instead of "90-120 m" and "100-130yds". Maybe texts in 3 colours: black text- obligatory to every games/matchs; Blue text- allowed in not international matches; red text obligatory only in A international matches. (Sorry for my english and hope you don punish me because I did paste this same ideas in 3 diferent places, find a fixer is a hard work sometimes.) Or we can put there a absolut new image, a "better" image is better that "imperfec" current image. --Feroang (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we would be better served with pointing out the A int'l lengths in prose (as it is) and leaving the flexible lengths in the accompanying image of the pitch. Different pitch dimensions are a reality and we shouldn't limit a general illustration to a specific set of sizes. Texts in different colors are always a bad idea, as there are color-blind people to think about (esp. red and green would be an issue here). In other words - I think things are fine just as they are. Madcynic (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Craig Garside - notability
Quick question around notability. Would playing in a UEFA qualifying round for a semi-professional Welsh club confer notability? Craig Garside as case in point. Zanoni (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I would say probably not. I think it would depend on the professional status of the opposition, but I think the agreement is that the match has to be between two fully professional sides. – PeeJay13:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
He plays for Dynamo Dresden II, the reserve team, not the first team. But User:Footfuture keeps editing his page to make him a first-team player. It's arguable that he may be on the fringes of the first-team, and may have a squad number, but I've seen no evidence for this. Even if that't the case, the user is changing his infobox stats from Dynamo II to Dynamo which is simply inaccurate. How do I stop this? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
You don't my friend, the vandals are the only ones who can stop themselves...You block them, they find another IP (i once read one guy boast to another who blocked him that he had access to "zillions" of IP in his area, so the admin better quit!). The only tactic, which i still have not come to master, is the REVERT, BLOCK, IGNORE, minus the BLOCK, which does nothing...
As i said in the beginning, we can only hope that these people understand they are being annoying and leave the site for themselves, only that. Warnings? Some ignore the messages, others may never read them because they never notice the "you have a new message" banner. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The articles for the finals of this competition are all labelled in the plural (e.g. 1962 Copa Libertadores Finals), which I guess tries to address the fact that the event is always more than one final. However I'm not sure how well this reflects sources, and the UEFA Cup Finals (from the 2-leg era) are written in the singular (e.g. 1979 UEFA Cup Final). I did a quick Google search and there were significantly more hits in the singular, although the hits for the plural may well be inflated because this is what Wikipedia currently has. Any thoughts? Eldumpo (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It's plural since it is two games, just like NBA Finals (among others). It's the same in Spanish.
From the dictionary:
noun
1 the last game in a sports tournament or other competition, which decides the winner of the tournament.
• (finals) a series of games constituting the final stage of a competition
It should be plural, as from the definition Digirami gave. Do you Eldumpo mean that it is against commoname, giving the fact that more sources use singular? Or something else? FkpCascais (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It's ultimately about sources rather than a dictionary definition, although it's debatable as to whether a 2-legged final counts as a "series" of matches. Here are some sources referring to individual finals in the singular [4][5][6][7] Also, a number of the current final articles refer to the competition in the singular in the introduction (e.g. 1995 Copa Libertadores Finals).Eldumpo (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:ENGVAR applies. Certainly in British English, you'd call a two-legged final a final, not finals. If the articles are titled in AmEng, perhaps they do things differently. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
In South America, AmE is more commonly used and taught, although there might be pockets of BrE spoken (don't ask me where, though). So while those British sources would use the singular, the plural is the correct form for the title. And yes, technically it a series since there are more than one match. Digirami (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
So you're suggesting to change the titles if commonname applies, despite that it would grammatically incorrect? I would be opposed to it since the title would be wrong. It's plural in proper AmE English (perhaps in BrE, too). Just because others do not use good grammar does not mean we should too. (And ESPN is American, but Soccernet is international with British origins.) Digirami (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the titles should be reflecting what the sources are showing, not that I'm saying the singular is 'grammatically incorrect' anyway. Here are some further Americas sources showing the singular [11][12]
@FkP - you originally said you agreed it should be plural but asked if my point was that the current naming was going against Common name, so have you changed your mind given the various sources I have posted. Anyone else got a view? Eldumpo (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I only asked to check if that was what you meant. I´m not sure on this, so that is why I have been abscent since then, but I´m following the discussion here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the official reason why CONMEBOL does not use aggregate score. But if I had to make an educated guess, it would be 1) a continuation of a the points system from the early days (1960s and such); 2) because points can be used first before taking into consideration the goals scored. Digirami (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Need help
I need some admin help with some IP insistently removing all sources and cats from FK Radnički Stobex article. I contacted him on his talk page explaining him issues on two languages, but he simply doesn´t care and repeats the edit every time leaving the article (basic already) without sources and cats. Please see the edit history of the article, and if possible a block would be good. FkpCascais (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I left a warning on their talk page, seeing as they again removed stuff after your explanation. When they added the squad list to the article, it might have been an idea to leave it in and point them towards how to format it, rather than removing it without any explanation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I noteced it. Thanks. You are also right, my removal of his squad addition may had been taken as arrogant... but I was a bit of fed-up of fixing all those minor clubs... Lets see if he gets the idea this time. Thanks again! FkpCascais (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
He removed the source again, leaving the article usourced without any reason. Please block him, just as lesson. He was warned twice already. FkpCascais (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone with knolledge on lower leagues English football check this? The entire article was turned upside down. Maybe it´s ok, but... FkpCascais (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Lots of very POV in the recent additions, and no verification at all, so I reverted. All the makings of BLP violations, though I wouldn't be totally surprised to ffind editor claiming to be Woods himself. Kevin McE (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
That passed trough my mind as well. :) He knew some unusual details, and definitely edited the article in (self?)promotional manner. And the username: Nwoo5000 (Neil Woods?). Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
And he's reverted back. Definitely needs a block for 3RR, let alone all his other problems (COI, advertising, unreferenced info etc.) GiantSnowman17:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I missed all the action... What would you all think if I try to "fix & wikify" his edits, just to show good faith and how it should be done? Obviously, concentrating on the football career, and removing all promotional tone and sourcing everything. It does look the article is out dated... FkpCascais (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I precipitated myself, cause now seems I´ll be short of time these days (mini hollydays), and that is something that wouldn´t be useful to do in rush. However, I´ll try to find some time for it soon. Anyway, I just wanted to hear your touths about if that was a good idea, or not, having in mind recent events on that page. Thanks GiantSnowman. FkpCascais (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a small edit war brewing at the article, regarding its history and foundation date. In a nutshell - the club was formed in 1945 by communist authorities who had disbanded several popular clubs that year as punishment for competing in the fascist championship. For the next 45 years the national football association, the club itself and virtually any source you can find regarded 1945 as its foundation year. In the 1990s communism fell and the club officials began claiming that the club was in fact a successor of the defunct Građanski Zagreb. Things were quiet for some ten years and then about a week ago present-day Dinamo board decided to append the "Građanski" ("Citizens'") adjective to the club's name, they re-launched their website and immediately organized a centennial celebration, probably to match their greatest rivals' Hajduk Split centennial which also falls on 2011. This is when User:Prof. Baltazar showed up and started changing the Dinamo article to conform with the club's view of the day. He is doing his best to merge the articles about Građanski and about Dinamo. I reverted his changes several times, left messages at his talk page and invited him to reach a consensus at Talk:GNK Dinamo Zagreb before making such major edits, but he stubbornly insists on his version of history and supports it with mere politically-minded opinions (with ideas such as "the Football Federation of Yugoslavia is not authoritative to decide whether the clubs year of foundation is 1911 or 1945"). What are we supposed to do here? UEFA.com does not list foundation date at the club's profile, all the club's almanacs published between 1945 and 1990 stick with the year 1945, and there's even a bronze plaque erected by the club in 1975 placed on a building in downtown Zagreb which commemorated the club's 30th anniversary. Ignoring all this is just absurd. Timbouctou (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
As you can see, an editor has proposed speedy deletion for this template - by blanking its page first, and then editing all articles that use this template to use Template:Football in East Germany (created by the same editor) instead.
I personally find my self at a loss as to what to do now. The new template seems inferior to me, but I'm just not sure how to contest the speedy deletion bit. Help? Madcynic (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that it does. It also contains a number of red links that will never be filled too. In this instance I think a navigational templte that shows what exists is better than one that shows what isn't. E.g. the women's nat'l team never played a full int'l. Madcynic (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
A merger of the two templates might be the best move. The creator of the second one could have just modified it to be in line with similar ones, instead of creating a new one! After all, just because an article may need a rewrite doesn't mean we create a new one. We just modify the existing one! Calistemon (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
..........the discussion that apparently led to the decision that teams not in a fully-pro league cannot have their squad listed in their article? See [13] and many other edits by the same editor...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Footballer notability guidelines only refer to individual articles, and posting a squad list doesn't contravene those guidelines. I say revert it. —BETTIA—talk13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Zanoni's replied on his (and my) talk page, and he makes a valid point about a number of non-league rosters being out of date. It probably wouldn't be the best time to look at this, but perhaps in August (i.e. when the new season starts, and therefore when clubs have their new squads in place), it may be worth having a drive to get as many non-league squad lists up to date as possible. —BETTIA—talk15:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Aye. Long term solution seems to be contacting the local Hungarian ambassador to request that his/her government encourages greater variety in the naming of Hungarian children. Short term - rename the redlink to Lászlo Kiss (Debreceni VSC manager) and add it to the László Kiss disambig page. Ho hum. Thanks for the assistance. - TB (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
As we all know, WP articles on persons consist of...well, information on REAL people. Hence, there is a possibility that they come in and edit their articles, nothing more nothing less.
In João Pedro Henriques Neto, apparently the player has come in and proceeded to make some wrong changes in infobox, others correct of course as he would know best. I have notified him about his wrongdoings, but i don't know whether my message will reach him as he has a dynamic IP.
Point them in the direction of WP:COI - revert, warn, and if needed take further. FYI, it's not that unusual to have players edit their own articles - we had Neil Wood just earlier today, and I had a run-in with Max Cream a few weeks ago! GiantSnowman22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the stuff on Cream is hard to detect in my opinion, as he provided no summaries, Wood is definitely him (or a GREAT friend!). Furthermore, in the case of João Pedro, he has not incurred in any severe violations yet (no promotional text, no inflated stats, only some box errors), if he reads my message - in Portuguese - chances are he'll stop. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I recall Stuart Holden admiting on Soccer AM a couple of weeks back that there was some infomation on his page which he kept on deleting because it was embarresing to him but he said that the edits kept being reverted. –LiamTaylor– 23:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
There is an irony in our use of that clip to reliably source said scrubbing on the article. Personally I don't think there's anything embarrassing about being a professional-level CS player who is also a World Cup-level footballer; rather the opposite in fact. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk12:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, first time editor here - please don't bite :))) I'm looking to add to the Brian McGinlay article but unsure how to proceed as lots of info seems to be suppressed already. Can anyone offer any help as to explain the withdrawal from the 1986 world cup and his 1992 retirement in a wiki-friendly way?
Greetings! To cut a long story short - make sure the information you provide is backed up by reliable sources (so that we can verify information), and write in a neutral way, without any point of view. Any further questions you need answering, just ask, we're here to help! Thanks, GiantSnowman23:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Can editors please keep an eye on this player's article? He broke Steve Zakuani's leg in tonight's MLS game between Seattle and Colorado, and now disgruntled Seattle fans are resorting to vandalism to vent their spleens. I've been reverting some of the more egregious changes, but I don't want to get caught out by 3RR. Thanks. JonBroxton (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Individual sendings off are no more remarkable that individual goals, and we don't list goals unless they were truly remarkable in their impact. It should be extraordinarily rare that a red card is mentioned: final of a major championship (Zidane, for example, or Kevin Moran as first red card in an FA Cup final)), a tackle that results in court action, and that's probably about it. Anything else is recentism and, more often than not, ire of the fans of the team fouled against (and therefore likely to be WP:POINTy). If any long-term relevance arises (whether in this case or generally), later addition is far more likely to be cool-headed, and can focus on the long term effect rather than anger at the foul or its consequences. Kevin McE (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Opening line of article
As some of you may or may not know, I do a lot of work on Algerian football and a number of Algerian footballers are born in France (the majority of our national team is actually born there). However, all these players are of Algerian descent, with either one or both of their parents being Algerian. Anyways, point I'm getting at, is that the opening line of the player articles read as such (for example): "Kamel Fathi Ghilas (born 9 March 1984) is a French-born Algerian international footballer." Personally, I don't like when it says French-born in the opening line for the simple fact that it seems like the player is not of Algerian descent and simply a naturalized citizen (like some other countries do on a wide scale). Now I know its not technically wrong to say he's French-born and frankly I have nothing against it, its just that the wording looks like it might imply something different .. and I've met a few people who think that our players are actually "ethnically French" (if I can use that term) as opposed to being Algerian born in France. I was just wondering if I'm the only one that sees it that way .. and what other users think. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I think WP:OPENPARA point 3.2 is very usefull. Maybe you don´t remember, but we had discussed that recently, and the conclusion was to eliminate all mentioning of descent, foreign-born, and such things from the lead (first paragraph). No one is saying to ignore those facts, that can be quite usefull and informative, but they should be mentioned in the article body leaving the lead with only basic usefull information. Since we are talking about footballers, their notability is because of the sport, not because of their birthplace or ethnicity, so we should stick to the players sports nationality, and expand everything else further in article in sections like "Personal life", or "Early career". See for exemple Milan Smiljanić that I edited just now before seing this. See the "Early life" section? Anyway, ethnicities, descent, and all related issues should be added exactly there. FkpCascais (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the rpely .. from what I can tell on WP:OPENPARA, I was on the right track with my thinking. When a player is foreign-born, I usually add the country of birth in the opening brackets. For my previous example, I would have it as such: "Kamel Fathi Ghilas (born 9 March 1984 in Marseille, France) is an Algerian international footballer." That way, it still contains the info that he is born in another country but does not necessarily imply anything. Though I'm sure some will argue whether the place of birth is really relevant.TonyStarks (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Where nationality and ethnicity are concerned people will argue over anything. The solution I prefer is to remove all mention of both from the first sentence if there is any ambiguity at all, and to address the matter properly in the second or third paragraph. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk12:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Remember him quite well, funny to find he does not have a WP article, SOCCERBASE.COM apparently also does not seem "to care". Attentively logging off - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
He was before my time, but here is his page at Post War English & Scottish Football League A–Z. As far as I can tell, Soccerbase still only goes back to the mid-1990s when it comes to tallying up appearances and goals for individual players. Argyle 4 Lifetalk23:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Football League season articles formatting
Hey folks,
Any bored copyeditors fancy helping out with sorting the formatting of the various Football League season articles? They all pretty much have the same problems:
What should be the introduction is fenced off into a "Summary" section, occasionally with sub-headers, meaning the articles have no lead section (or only a stub sentence). This can be resolved by simply removing all the headers from the summary.
Many include the following boilerplate:
The tables below are reproduced here in the exact form that they can be found at the The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation website[1] and in Rothmans Book of Football League Records 1888–89 to 1978–79[2], with home and away statistics separated.
That just needs chopped and the reference cited normally, either by attaching it to a table or just including it in the references section.
Additionally, many include the following boilerplate on league structure, sometimes split into several paragraphs:
Re-election: During the first five seasons of the league, that is, until the season 1893–94, re-election process concerned the clubs which finished in the bottom four of the league. From the 1894–95 season and until the 1920–21 season the re-election process was required of the clubs which finished in the bottom three of the league. From the 1922–23 season on it was required of the bottom two teams of both Third Division North and Third Division South. Since the Fourth Division was established in the 1958–59 season, the re-election process has concerned the bottom four clubs in that division.[3]
Likewise, that can simply be deleted unless it is directly related to the season in question.
Related to the above, they often have a <references/> tag following that. This should be deleted.
An example of the required changes can be found in this diff. The pages in question can be found in this category. Thanks!
I'll watch this one with interest considering that I've received flak for having the audacity to follow the criteria laid out at WP:NFOOTBALL. Relaxing the rules even further doesn't appeal to me. Under the proposal put forward in the link provided, players who appeared in the Liechtenstein Football Cup in 2010 would be deemed notable. Fully professional leagues is as low as it can get, in my opinion. Argyle 4 Lifetalk23:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Total nonsense. The current zealous enforcement of the fully-pro suggestion as a guideline does a grave disservice to our coverage of perfectly notable leagues like the Scottish First Division. The problem is that people can't seem to be able to use common sense and need everything cast in stone for them. That's not how the rest of the encyclopedia works, so God knows why people insist on it here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Loan/Buy during season
If a player is loaned to a club and he signs permanently, does that take effect immediately or when the transfer market opens? For example, Hameur Bouazza was loaned to Millwall in the Championship from French club AC Arles for 6 months. However, Millwall just signed him on a permanent basis, with the season still running. Does that mean he's still on loan until the end of the season (joining them permanently on July 1) or does that mean he's a Millwall player? The reason I ask is mainly for his stats for the rest of the season (whether they are listed under the loan to Millwall or not). Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Depends what Arles did. John Carew was on loan for the rest of the season from Aston Villa to Stoke City, but Aston Villa curtailed his contract. As he was out of contract, he could be signed outside the transfer window, so Stoke took up the contract for the remainder of the season. Have Millwall signed Bouazza permanently as of now, or have they signed a pre-contract agreement? Assume nothing, check the details in reliable sources. Kevin McE (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure to be honest .. I tried to contact the user that made the edit but he seems convinced that the transfer takes effect immediately. See here for more info: [15].TonyStarks (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick question. When you update stats on the infobox should you update pcupdate = with the date you update it on or the date of the last game stats were taken from.20:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
But don't forget to include an edit summary telling other editors which game you're updating the stats for "(game vs Example FC, 1 Jan 2010)" or something. JonBroxton (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Excel spreadsheet
Can anybody recommend a spreadsheet that can be downloaded to quickly calculate group tables and team positions?
Ideally, I'd like to be able to add the group's teams, then the spreadsheet would generate a match list based on number of games played and allow me to input scores. The results would then be used to create a group league table with teams in their final positions. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Didn't we agree at some point not to use this symbol? In any case, I agree that the template is completely unnecessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Can an admin please re-create this article for me? He made his fully pro debut tonight for New England Revolution in the US Open Cup - confirmation is here: [17]. Thanks! JonBroxton (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether the |country = parameter in the Template:Infobox football league may link to the sanctioning federation rather than the country. The precedent seems to be country only but the linking to the federation makes imminent sense. The discussion is happening on Talk:North American Soccer League (2011). There is also a request on the template page to add federation as a separate parameter. Input would be appreciated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The stat itself should refer solely to the federation, and I'd be happy to alter the template to that effect. Having two parameters is overkill here IMO, and likely to lead to nationalist edit warring (as if we need any more of that). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
National team recent call ups
Should players that have announced their retirement from international football be added to the current squad or recent call-ups list. In the Mexico national football team article I've been removing international retired players from the list but some IPs keep adding them back. I even left a hidden message saying to not add retired players but an IP changed the message and said to not remove them. GoPurple'nGold2422:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
If they retired, then GiantSnowman is right, do not list them in the Current Squad section. But, I see no reason why they can't be listed in the Recent Call-ups section. After all, its just a list of people who have played/called-up for the team in the recent past. Retired players certainly fit into that category. Digirami (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly .. I tend to keep retired players on the recent call ups section for 6 months or 1 year, depending on the number of matches the team has played since the retirement (and the number of new players called up, etc.).TonyStarks (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Post-season play-offs
Hi there. Do end of season play-offs, like the spareggio formerly used as a tie-breaker in Serie A (in 2004–05, for example]] and the post-season promotion play-offs in the Football League count towards league appearances for the purposes of player infoboxes? I'm quite sure it's established one way or the other, but I don't know which way. Thanks. † Omgosh30 †00:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought in some leagues they do count? Can't remember which league it was exactly .. but if I'm not mistaken, in Belgium they are counted. Not 100% sure though so don't quote me on this. TonyStarks (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I was not sure if this is only a temporary change for the benefit of the bot or something else. If this is necessary for the bot to run, maybe a note should be added to the template to avoid confusion. --Jaellee (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
If that is the case, then it would be ideal for Peterb to inform us of that, and get consensus - there's a time to be bold, but messing with a template which affects tens of thousands of articles isn't it. GiantSnowman23:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Another shining example of how football unites people...in VANDALISM!!
FC Barcelona won against Real Madrid, but players on both sides, Sergio Busquets and Pepe, are being treated to a dose of industrial idiocy. And Marcelo did strike the former's face, so he did not feign anything there (unlike the incident with Thiago Motta).
Speaking of SOCCER, no words for Lionel Messi and, on the negative side, no words for José Mourinho and his whining (and i am Portuguese, and not a Barcelona fan, do not support any club). Returning to paragraph#1, like i said, "lovely", i have already requested admin action on both articles.
In a non-vandalic approach, can someone tell me if i am doing the correct thing?
I spent the last hour improving this player's article (what a strange death man! RIP) and something struck me as illogical: the Slovak League begun in 1993/94, he moved to Real Madrid after 1992/93, so he never competed in the new league, how could have he won the award for Player of the Year in said competition? Like i said, illogical.
A lot of footballer of the year awards include players playing abroad: the most recent winners of that one play for Liverpool and Napoli. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes i understand Art. It's just that the sentence before my edits read "In 1993 he became the first Player of the Year of the newly-formed Slovak league...", hence i saying it looked illogical. Thanks for the input. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
He's reportedly the England national football team's first black captain, I know he was born in London but where were his descendants ancestors from? Trinidad? Barbados? TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Any "old" editors out there? Regarding this player's height, all i can say is that i remember his European Cup exploits, but 25 years is too much to say i know whether he was 1,75 or 1,93 (the former being a short height for a GK, i'll admit it)...
However, all of the available links say he is 1,75 (including one ROMANIAN!) and the height keeps being changed, without one word in summary and i am getting a little fed up. I remember someone telling me in the past something about VERIFIABILITY, meaning we should go with the sources available, when it's all that we have.
Please, don't just reference the 1,75 with the links, that solves nothing, the (possible) vandals, most of them anon - but i have just sent a message to User:Narcis90, who was also "kind" enough to "offer" Duckadam a goal for Steaua in his box! - will continue to do their deed whether the height is ref'd or not. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The Romanian article says he's 1,93, and also offers article regarding the reference attached to goal for Steaua, will later try to read it closely (it's a latin language) to see if i can make anything of it. But the height, as we all know, could have been changed by ANYONE! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The goal is correct, have just read article (see here http://cupadelegenda.gsp.ro/stiri/17/cum-era-sa-ramina-duckadam-fara-mina.htm - in the very last lines), but it has to be in the cup, links #1 and #2 don't show anything in his league stats, thus added storyline (with ref) and category ("Association football goalkeepers who have scored"), but removed goal in box.
Also tried to find refs for his supposed run-in with The Man, popular belief has it to be true, he had his hands broken shortly after the EC Final, rather than the "blood disorder" which appears in the text (or maybe both?). It was once inserted here, but i removed it (2 years ago maybe) on the grounds it was not sourced and it was a rather "hot" topic. Now, all i can find in the web are texts which probably stem from what once "existed" in the wiki-fields... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
What are people's views on this list of teams that missed out on playing in Europe because of the ban on English clubs. For 1985-86 it's fair enough as those teams were all set to compete, but after that it's a bit more arbitrary to me as the ban was in place and known about. What did UEFA do about the coefficients during the ban. Was England included in the coefficient list during the ban? It basically seems to be an assumption based on if English teams performance had continued at the same level as it had up to the ban, and I think at the very least, qualifying statements should be added to the text. Any thoughts? Eldumpo (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The English coefficient was wiped out after they re-entered Europe: not ranked in 1990, then ranked on the basis of one year's results in 1991. When they were readmitted in 1990/91 they only had the minimum number of places (one for the EC, one for the ECWC, one for the UEFA Cup), and lost one of those (the EC place) because Liverpool (the English league champion in 1990) were banned for an additional year. Any assertion of "who would have qualified in season xx/xx" is based either on the counter-factual assumption that the Heysel ban never happened or was lifted earlier. You could have different possible assertions: one with the "normal" number of European places, or one with the reduced number of places. You also don't know how well English clubs would have performed in European competitions if they had been allowed to enter, which would have affected their allocation in the following seasons. You could also have a scenario where only Liverpool were banned and the rest of the teams allowed to compete. It strikes me as being original research to justify any assertion of who would have qualified in a certain season. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses/action. The reason I came across this issue is season articles such as this [18] and this [19], which include the spurious information as notes and highlights. Eldumpo (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Squeezed infoboxes
From time to time I found some infoboxes literaly squeezed... I allwys wandered who was loosing time doing that to our poor infoboxes, but I found the "guilty one"!: User:Nameless User. I found him trough this and this edits... I supose he has some bite-to-bite price for internet, so getting the articles down to less possible bites saves him money... Or, is it something else? FkpCascais (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I've asked them to stop. Apart from the apparent pointlessness of editing just to remove spaces, if there's no spacing at all, it makes the infobox very difficult to work with. Hopefully they'll listen. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't like it when users move the | to the end of the line, instead of leaving it at the beginning of a new one. It just looks untidy to me. TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I had filed a request here, but appears another bot was fast-tracked and approved before me, although I did file first. In any event, I am still seeking approval, since the category may fill up again in the future due to inadvertent reversions, intermingled vandalism, cut-and-paste from other wikis, etc. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)20:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Myrmecophagous has removed, in Gerard Deulofeu, a bit (which i did not insert in the first place, i only improved its display) where interest from Premier League teams occurred, the bit being REFERENCED.
My doubt is: why should it not be mentioned if it's ref'd? It adds to the player's career, and it's not POVish or WEASELish methinks. The user mentioned above (which i have notified about the discussion), when removing went as far as to call it NONSENSE, and also removed my previous message to him summarily from his talkpage, without one word of feedback..."Great" teamwork.
In a similar case, i think the Everton affair with João Moutinho (which amounts to several lines in his article and 3 or 4 refs), and the transfer finally did not happen. Before an edit war arises, inputs please.
I suppose it depends whether it is transfer tittle-tattle (speculation) of the "x club is interested in y player" variety, or an actual publicly disclosed offer that was made and the deal did not go through for whatever, again publicly reported reason (failed medical, fee too low, contract not agreed). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
OK i'll remove it. But his actions (removing my message from his page, not one word in return), really "classy", indeed. Thanks for your inputs Argyle and JM, happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why he removed a comment by you from his talk page, I'd only do it when putting it in an archive, but to each their own. If an official approach had been made and it was covered in reliable sources then it could be included, but the "story" in the Mirror is just typical tabloid speculation. Argyle 4 Lifetalk22:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Unused World Cup brackets
I found these template brackets that I think I've seen used at the 2006 FIFA World Cup for a brief moment in the past (and if I remember correctly, they were turned down).
I've checked their "what links here" for each template and they aren't being used. Do they serve a purpose? Can they be proposed for deletion? --MicroX (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The site could be useful, but I'm not sure how accurate the info is. I just did a quick check based on Chippenham Town F.C.. If the external link stays then the direct link for the club should be added (e.g. [21]). The graph, sequences, and heaviest defeats etc seem quite useful, and on first glance this information was not easily to hand from the Chippenham site. The text section though had come from Wikipedia. Eldumpo (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Has Chris Sharpe (ex Blackburn, Southampton, Chesterfield, B1909 Odense, Viborg FF, Køge Boldklub, Colorado Rapids [22]) ever played in a fully professional league? Hack (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
According to the Danish wikipedia, he played four times for Køge in the Danish 2nd division - not much else it would appear... Hack (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
1 - a YouTube video, nothing more needs to be said, except this: a YouTube video that prior to Pepe's challenge, shows a Sergio Busquets tackle on Xabi Alonso, for "comparison" purposes; 2 - a Real Madrid press release (do you think the Real Madrid's website has ever chosen sides in their lives?!).
I think with the info available ("Pepe played as defensive midfielder", "he was sent off for a challenge on X against Barcelona") is more than enough, no POV, just the facts. If we get a source surrounding the fairness of his dismissal, it has to be an independent one.
From what i see from User:Hoising's contributions, the same (well not the same, related as both were the ones involved in that play) has been done in Daniel Alves, just a briefing. I am going to send him a message. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please change it. Many other languages use the surname+name formate, Hungarian for exemple, but we allways change it to Western order. I think we should allways avoid using hu:Puskas Ferenc instead of Ferenc Puskas, for exemple. FkpCascais (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you´re absolutely right, I forgot the Far East language names, namely Chinese, Korean and some other Indochinese languages... FkpCascais (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
He played in the first years of the italian championship, coming from Newcastle, the problem is we ignore when he was exactly born and died; do you have books where there are informations? 93.56.60.139 (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
No record of him ever playing in the Football League, so he's unlikely to be covered in any English books I'm afraid. Maybe he played in Scotland. What makes you think he was Scottish if he was born in Newcastle..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
exact, the few sources we have say he was born in Scotland and he played for the Newcastle club.. if somebody has a book about that club maybe there is written more about this player, he played "only" for Juve and Milan.. 93.56.25.13 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I tried at british consulate but people don't give me informations about personal datas, also if he is dead..
He may possibly have signed for Newcastle (not confirmed) but he definitely never played in The Football League for them (or any other club), so you can put his Newcastle stats as 0 games and 0 goals - source: Michael Joyce, "Football League Players' Records 1888–1939" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I could also be an amateur club from Newcastle. Wasn't Italian football amateur in those days? It's highly likely he didn't go to Italy to play football but for other reasons Cattivi (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Definitely didn't play in the Football League for Newcastle. Joyce's book is as definitive as you can get and I couldn't find him in there either. RSSSF says he was at Newcastle in 1904 and joined Juventus in 1905. Argyle 4 Lifetalk20:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The best place to look for information about him would be the Turin or Milan city archives. In the Netherlands it would be easy to find him .You search for his address in the Dutch FA records, and then search the city archives. But usually you have to go there and look for yourself, or pay an archivist to search for you. I don't know about the situation in Italy. Cattivi (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
in Italy, if you want know when a person was born and dead you must have suspects he is dead (some people aren't happy to discover other people are investigating about them ;)..) otherwise people at the city archive can deny datas; then if the person wasn't italian or the city isn't italian today (for example now the city is in Slovenia) the research is still more difficult if not impossible; then if the person was born for example in Rome you must go only in Rome (Italy isn't so little as you imagine, believe me!) and so on.. in few words, searching in city archives is a lot difficult. Really a lot. The only chance is finding datas in a scottish city archives: if we find Jack Diment was dead on January 1, 1981 in a little village in Scotland, reading obituaries we can have more informations.. 93.56.58.72 (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
He's also not listed at the toon1892 stats website [23] which additionally confirms he did not play an FA Cup match for them, but it doesn't mean he wasn't on their books. He may have played reserve matches for Newcastle. Eldumpo (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
There appear to be four records of people called Diment being born in 1881 in the UK Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths, but you have to pay to view the full details. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
There are no results in the free part of ScotlandsPeople for "Diment" between 1895 and 1905. It doesn't strike me as a common name at all. I wonder if he changed his name after moving to Italy? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe the name was changed, it happened in the fascist age but only for given name (so George Bush became Giorgio Bush) and surnames from East Europe, because we had (and we still have) problems with those surnames, Antonio Vojak became sometime Vojach in the same article.. 93.56.57.180 (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
There are two records on that site of births with the name Diment between 1880 and 1890, presumably one of these is our man, maybe he moved to England before 1895. Again, though, to view the full details requires payment -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
in the photo where there are little kids, the first, Percy Maspero, had italian origins, so maybe there is another explanation for his years in Italy.. 93.56.58.248 (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
According to Iffhs, he was Scottish. If Iffhs states that, we can be sure that it's the truth. They are the best football experts in the world, in my opinion. --VAN ZANT (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm 10-20 years ago maybe. I know their Dutch contributor, he hasn't worked for them in ages. Diment isn't really a Scottish name. There are 5 Diments in the 1891 Scottish Census: George, Margaret (parents?) John Archibald and George. The search for Diments living in Newcastle in 1901 gives very similar results. George, Margaret, John, Archibald +Thomas and Robert (born after 1891) This could mean he (John or 'Jack' ) was born in Devon ca.1886 (If this doesn't violate OR....)Cattivi (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
John or Jack was born in 1881, maybe he isn't in 1891 census because he lived out his family (he was 10 years old, maybe he lived in a college) and in Newcastle in 1901 because maybe in that year (he was 20 years old) lived in another city, Sunderland? London? If somebody on en.wikipedia works at UK census offices and he can legally search it we could find the solution.93.56.56.153 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The only certainty I can give you is that he wasn't born in Scotland. George and Archibald Diment were the only Diments born in Scotland between 1870 and 1890 and they are even younger, Or his name is spelled the wrong way. My favourite guess is John Bowman Diment born 2nd quarter 1885 in Devonport (Stoke Damerel),Plymouth . (Margaret Bowman was his mother maiden name)Cattivi (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not difficult to spot errors on that site, or virtually any other site. Changing it to English, born in 1885 would be a bit premature. First needs to be established if it's a spelling ,nationality or age problem or a combination of these three. The only way to be sure is to search Italian civil records Cattivi (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
it would be a miracle, we must be lucky and hope he asked a "staying permit" and maybe after WWII there aren't those books at italian city offices.. 93.56.49.51 (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Divisional stadium templates
Someone recently edited {{Football League Championship Venues}} and the ones for League One and Two to add all former stadiums to host football at this level. I reverted on the basis that there is simply no need for it, and we'd end up with many, many grounds on each one if it was actually backdated all the way to the Football League's establishment. However, it was reverted back by the editor in question with the argument that the same exists on the Premier League template. The question is, should it also be removed from that template?
This is also a more general question - I've seen a trend recently for adding all former clubs to have played at a level to the current season template (see {{Football League Championship}}) - is this something others are ok with? Personally I find it rather pointless, and believe it only serves to inflate templates. Number5708:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not convinced that the template for venues should include former teams from the league. Anyway, because of the frequent changes to league names, it is often an arbitrary break anyway. I can see more rationale in allowing former venues for the top-level league because I think it is more of note which venues have historically hosted top-flight football, rather than which may have hosted second or third level football. Eldumpo (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
At the rate that clubs rise/drop divisions nowadays, very soon every league club will be on every template - making them pretty much void. Keep it to current league clubs I say. GiantSnowman11:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Sergi Roberto
I've added FC Barcelona to the infobox of Sergi Roberto. He's played in a couple of Cup and Europe games this season for Barcelona, just not in La Liga yet. Am I right in including FC Barcelona in his infobox, as there seems to be an issue with an IP user who keeps removing it? --Jimbo[online]16:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why not, I've seen plenty of infoboxes with 0 apps and goals for a club because the player hasn't played in any league games, but has featured in cups. Swaddon1903 (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course, the infobox isn't just to show league apps, it's to the show their career; league apps are a detail within that information. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes Art, but why show a useless 0/0, even more so when this player (and many many others) may not appear for their club's first team until, let's say, one more year or two? Some players are called three or four times to the main squad in two full seasons (or three), without appearing, why should that appear in the infobox? With the storyline it's more than enough i think - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Because the infobox an overview of their career: if, for a period of the players' career, he was part of Barcelona's first-team squad without playing a league game, that should be reflected. It's accurate, not misleading, nor a waste of space particularly. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
From what i see, the link for Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 player stats page at Ligue de Football Professionel operates simply by inserting the player's name, nothing else, with the "LFP" prefix.
I tried and tried with this Nigerian chap, to no avail. Of course i could have just copied the external link of the player, but i think it's best to keep it coherent and go with the template. Can someone assist me? I know that, in the past, User:Rich Farmbrough has fixed several of those, brother can you hear me?!
Can someone help me add the football kits to the 2011 Algerian Cup Final ? I tried putting it in for the "home" team like I usually do but for some reason it just comes out white. I've looked over the code a few times and I don't see anything wrong. Also, I didn't bother doing the away team because I don't know enough about how the kits work. If someone can take a crack at it. For the home team (USM El Harrach), its just yellow shirts, black shorts and yellow socks. For the away team (JS Kabylie), its green socks, white shorts and horizontal green and white jersey (here's a pic). If someone can do this for me I'd really appreciate it! TonyStarks (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot man, I really appreciate it .. and I see what I was doing wrong now. I'm just going to make some minor changes to it.TonyStarks (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The consensus among most WP:FOOTY members is no. However, this article was kept at an AfD last week due to him having a bit of media coverage predicting him to make an impact. Despite the fact this was crystalballing and didn't indicate exactly how he was notable, a number of people (mostly from outside the project) felt this was enough to meet the general notability guidelines. —BETTIA—talk14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Bettia. None of the media coverage of him is based on anything he's done at a notable level, so why does GNG apply? – PeeJay16:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I think under-20 level is the cut-off point for youth tournament template notability and that was only if the template was not covered in red links. — JSRant Away17:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
A template is meant to link similar articles for navigation, and if it does that, then it fulfils its purpose - none of this "template is non-notable" nonsense. WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't apply to templates, hence why we don't have squad templates for notable clubs who don't have notable players (non-league etc.) GiantSnowman11:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The content has been reduced (like once a player retires, they retire the season-by-season list of matches he played in), as has the usability of existing content (like you can't link directly to very much at all). It's always been part of the same stable as the Racing Post, which is what made and makes it a reliable source: being run by a mainstream media organisation with standards of editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc. Don't know whether there are rules on suitability of RS. As an external link, it arguably falls foul of WP:ELNO#5 "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all, many thanks for Daemonic Kangaroo for alerting me to this discussion. I agree with Struway's final comment. Here is part of what I posted on the template site:
Soccerbase is designed to promote gambling. Its entire function is to tempt people to take a bet. On Ashley Cole's web page with Soccerbase, I am offered a 25 pound free bet as a new customer. "BET NOW" flashes every 10 seconds. But that's not all. If I'm an old customer, there's a link to Ladbrokes so that I can deposit and withdraw money, and if I don't have an account with this organisation, a link is provided to enable me to open such an account. Below that is another link to enable to me to bet every day of the year! Four games are presented to tempt me. "BET NOW!' screams a sign in the bottom right hand corner. Below that, Billy Bunter, tempts me to lay a bet while there is time and further down there is more betting news, designed to get me to wager my money.
On the strength of this evidence I think I would be entitled to propose a purge of Soccerbase from Wikipedia.
I believe there are other websites where we can obtain information. It is not appropriate that Soccerbase can use Wikipedia as a conduit for gambling revenue. BBC Sports provides a wealth of information without the baited hook for gambling. What about this as a substitute link? Michael Glass (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, quite so. I do not believe there are other websites where we can obtain all the info that is held by Soccerbase, particularly for those of us who are more interested in non-Premier League clubs. If I'm mistaken then please direct me to them! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It would seem teams whose websites are run by premiumtv have the same standard of stats as Rovers - Crewe for example. Good for current players, but as soon as a player leaves that club, those stats probably wouldn't be updated (assuming that profile page doesn't get deleted altogether, that is). I don't think we can rely on them, we need a more centralised resource - thankfully that Sportbox site looks good. —BETTIA—talk15:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Any idea who "ESA Group", its apparent publishers, are? The question is bound to be asked if any pages using Sportbox go up for FAC or FLC........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
ESA is an official wholesale reseller of Actim data, which is the brand name for the official data of the Premier League, Football League and SPL. Football DataCo use PA Sport as the master reseller, and ESA get their data from PA Sport. The relationship between PA Sport and DataCo and wholesaling is described here. Don't know if the extent of their coverage makes them a genuine alternative to Soccerbase, or how long they intend to remain in operation, or remain in operation as a free site, but their provenance looks reliable to me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(de-indent)While the recent changes to Soccerbase are to its detriment, it remains the best site for statistics for currently active players in England and Scotland. All the major statistics sites have their limitations, but Soccerbase is often the most comprehensive. To take the Ashley Cole example from the parallel discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Players#Is_a_betting_website_appropriate_in_the_template_as_a_link_for_Wikipedia_articles.3F, the BBC website has a number of limitations. It only names a player's current club, so the BBC link could only be used to verify his appearances for Chelsea, not Arsenal or Crystal Palace. It also lacks the season by season breakdown. As others have pointed out, it only covers players from the top division. Player profiles disappear as soon as a player moves to another league or retires. I would love to be able to suggest an alternative of equal comprehensiveness (not least because there are errors, omissions and idiosyncracies in Soccerbase), but sadly there isn't one. In terms of print sources, we have the annual Sky Sports (formerly Rothmans) Yearbook and Hugman's PFA Footballers' Who's Who, but these of course have the problem of becoming out of date almost as soon as they are published. A Soccerbase purge would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree fully with the above. Soccerbase is an excellent comprehensive source which often carries stats not available elsewhere on the web. It does sometimes contain errors, but these are not significant in number. If you took the point made at WP:ELNO at face value it could be argued that the majority of websites are there to sell products e.g. the Guardian site presumably wants you to buy their papers. As to the ELNO comment re "objectionable advertising" I agree there is a fair bit at Soccerbase, though perhaps not more than at many other web sites, and certainly not to the extent that all references to this very useful statistical source should be removed from Wikipedia. Eldumpo (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Soccerbase is great for stats yes it has the odd mistake but really they are minor. It is by the far the best source of stats around. Yes it has a gambling link but we do not use it as such only to help show a players career to the fullest.21:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
Personally I have very little time for Soccerbase. There are mistakes, and unfortunately numerous enough that I don't trust any of the information that's there. Off the top of my head, there are two if not three entries to Claus Bech Jorgensen, there is more than one Alex Rhodes to the extent the wrong one joins the wrong club, various managerial statistics are wrong for recent Bradford City managers and Bradford's 98-99 season statistics don't tally. That's just the statistics for one club off the top of my head. Add to that, historic managerial statistics are incorrect or at best incomplete, old cup competitions are incomplete and play-off data is sometimes but not always added to league data. Yes, Soccerbase is handy, but all the data needs some additional verification. Brad78 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I was interested to read the other comments above. I have no comment to make about Soccerbase's accuracy. My problem with Soccerbase is its blatant encouragement to online gambling. This makes it a snare for the vulnerable that detracts from any other usefulness it may have as a source of information. The problem of compulsive gambling is widespread, and this does raise ethical questions about linking Wikipedia articles to this site. If it contains important information that is available no-where else then perhaps it could be argued that a link is sometimes appropriate, but I think that links to this betting site would be better avoided. Michael Glass (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you actually kidding? The only content on Soccerbase that encourages gambling is the odd advert. Sure the site is run by the Racing Post, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement for gambling. – PeeJay01:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not kidding.
Google "Soccerbase" and what comes up is "Football Betting | Place Your Football Bet Today | Soccer Base Catch all the latest football betting odds, news, reviews and big match analysis courtesy of Soccerbase.com. Free football betting tips plus much more."
There is a standardised format for gambling running down the right hand side.
It offers a ₤25 free bet to all new customers (top of the web page).
Next comes Ladbrokes betting account login, plus a place for people to open an account with Ladbrokes.
Under that comes a green rectangle entitled "BET 365". BET NOW! is the link in the bottom right hand corner.
Next below comes Billy Bunter, telling us what he advises us to bet on.
I agree that since the site was revamped, the advertising has become intrusive. However, most uses of Soccerbase on here aren't just as a "link". It often appears in the external links section, but that's because people don't necessarily see the difference between putting it there and putting it in a references section. It's generally used as the WP:RS for players' appearances and goals, and "purging" it would leave thousands (literally) of footballer articles with their career stats unsourced. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
As with most of the comments above, I don't much like the "new" Soccerbase, although I have no trouble ignoring the advertsising messages and concentrating on the statistics. As far as I know, it is still the only comprehensive online database covering both present and (recent) past players and its stats seem to be reliable. As it is used on 8415 articles (see theTemplate transclusion count), a purge would be a seriously retrogade step. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of some of the changes that they made when they revamped the site either. Such as not allowing individual matches to be linked to anymore, altering appearance criteria so that play-off appearances are added to league instead of other, and completely removing the list of matches played in by a player on his page when he either drops down to a league which isn't covered or retires. Despite that, it is the most exhaustive database that I have seen online and it is used as a key reference for thousands of players, so a mass purge would be a big step backwards. The Guardian has a useful database for players in many countries, but all historical data is for league appearances only. Argyle 4 Lifetalk13:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I've long felt that if we were to pull our fingers out, come to an agreement on where Soccerbase is lacking, and formulate an official list of things we want, we would be in a position to tell Soccerbase what we require from the site in order to keep using it. After all, we are a massive driver of traffic towards their site, which unquestionably translates into significant revenue. If we, from a unified and public position, were to say "do this, or our community of editors will start using this alternative site", they would be mad not to take us seriously. —WFC— 16:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Links to 'Association football'
Association football seems to me to be a grossly overlinked term. In most articles about footballers' bios, football clubs or tournaments, is usually abundantly clear from the context what football we are referring to; there are usually other links and pointers to specific events, places, teams, trophies that would seem to me to obviate the need to link to the generic term 'Association football'. All other variants of football I know of are referred to with qualifiers (e.g. Gaelic football, rugby football, Aussie rules football, American football) so 'football' does not need dabbing and can be taken as read per WP:ENGVAR. I am wondering if we can do away with such a non-specific link for articles across the project? What concerns do the assembled editors have, and what exceptions do they wish to see with regards to unlinking instances such as [[Association football]], [[Association football|football]], [[Association football|soccer]] or [[Association football]]er in articles across the project? --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no concerns. The article is located at association football, for reasons much too numerous to list here, but that's where it NEEDS to be. As such, for players and teams in countries where the sport is commonly called football, the links should be piped as football and footballer, whereas for players and teams in countries where the sport is commonly called soccer, the links should be piped as soccer and soccer player. The bare link to association football only needs to be used when more than one version of football is talked about in the artcle. JonBroxton (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for not being clear: I am referring to instances of articles within the scope of WP:FOOTBALL such as this example, where we find '''Yaovi Aziabou''' (born September 11, 1990 in [[Lomé]]) is a [[Togo]]lese [[association football|football]] [[Defender (association football)|defender]]. [Association] football is the most popular sport on the planet; everywhere except in the USA is this game referred to as 'football' with no qualifier or disambiguation. The cascade of links in said article a breach of the manual of style, and I don't see much value/utility in linking football when it is abundant from context and links all around it in the article what sort of football we are talking about. There is already the adjacent link '[[Defender (association football)|defender]]'. If that were not enough, we have in the sentence that follows: "He currently plays for [[Tarbes Pyrénées Football|Tarbes]] in the [[Championnat de France amateur 2|French CFA 2]]". Would it not be more meaningful if we were to pipe to do without the link (as in "Yaovi Aziabou (born September 11, 1990 in Lomé) is a Togolese football defender"), or alternatively pipe to 'defender' as [[Defender (association football)|association football defender]] as in "Yaovi Aziabou (born September 11, 1990 in Lomé) is a association football defender from Togo"? --Ohconfucius¡digame!06:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. I think it's fine the way it is. No point in making work for yourself unneccesarily. JonBroxton (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think Ohconfucius is missing the main point, and that is that the link is there on purpose so the article about football actually links to the article about that sport, and not some disambiguation page, or no link at all. Linking to Association football is actually fundamental because that is the sport article we are talking about. We pipe it to football just for convenience. Ohconfucious assumption that "everywhere except in USA" is understandable to simply name it "football" is not trouth, many other nations name it soccer, and that becomes even more important considering the fact that this is English language wikipedia, precisely the one that needs to be explicit about it. So, resumingly, everything is just fine and perfect the way it is. Association football IS the article we want, and have, to link all football-related articles to, and definitely not to a disambiguation page. And btw, all football related articles should have one link to Association football, and articles that don´t have, as the exmeple of Yaovi Aziabou are wrong, and should be corrected to include it. FkpCascais (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
He is not saying the link needs to be changed to point to a different article, he is saying that the word "football" should not be linked at all, as far as I can see...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Chris, I corrected my coment (I had ec), so now it goes straight to the issue you pointed out. It obviously should include the link. Btw, lately I have been linking many articles that didn´t had them, just as routine edits. FkpCascais (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Basically, we HAVE to link all football-related articles to Association football, just as, for exemple, all city articles of Mexico certainly have at least one link in the article to Mexico. That is the point of linking, and not replacing it with links to positional articles, or tournaments, or anything else... Association football is the sport we are talking about, and has to be there so readers can access it easily. We pipe it to simply football but that doesn´t change anything, and the link must exist. FkpCascais (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we have to link to 'association football' in the same way we don't link to systematically to 'United States', 'United Kingdom', 'musician' or 'actor' for American or British musicians or actors, because firstly these are "common terms" the vast majority of our readers know what these are. Secondly, the link is weak in that reading the association football article adds little to the understanding to the subject (taking footballers' biographies as an example) that a more proximal link such as their position or national football or their team that can bring value to the reader. The link density and this linking of such a common term are closely related – I believe such bunching of links is likely to confuse the reader, and have a paradoxical effect on the propensity of the reader to click on same. --Ohconfucius¡digame!10:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I complete disagree with your view-point and it doesn't tally with my experience of reading Wikipedia articles. You are trying to fix something that isn't broken. Woody (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Got to disagree here. I've very rarely seen a biography on here where the person's occupation or field of work wasn't linked. There are other problems with the example sentence given (specifically, link-bunching), but that's a different issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk09:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Would it not be quicker for all concerned if the actual template used for player info provided a link to the relevant sport? That way we wouldn't have to type it individually for every player that doesn't have his profession linked?
One updated template vs many updated articles seems more efficient. Koncorde (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a solution to get the given articles linked en masse, allowing us to simplify the linking in the lede (or the body)... --Ohconfucius¡digame!10:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Chris, a person's occupation per se doesn't seem to be a useful link, unless it's something way out and unfamiliar. The number of articles that link "actor" at the start, crowding out valuable links in the same sentence, is a pity. But here, football is indeed a problematic term. In some countries there are several codes. People refer to them generically as "football", but in specific instances, football is used only where it's clear which code is referred to. Where the theme is already football but the code is unclear, "soccer", "rugby", "gridiron" would need to be specified. I think a link is probably necessary in these articles, but I'm not so sold on the generalised pipe, which doesn't encourage people to click on it. I suppose it would be clunky to pipe to "Association football", would it? I'm unsure. (e.c. ... Koncorde's idea is worth exploring if it allows the most useful links to be more exposed in the all-important lead, where we have maximum attention from the reader.) Tony(talk)10:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You clearly have to make plain the code of football being discussed in an article. I tend to remove the piping from association football on the initial mention in the lead where I see it and then use footballer/football thereon in. From my experience that seems the norm in featured content and articles that have been through reviews. That said, I don't think it deeply and truly affects a reader's understanding of the article or detracts from the article as a whole. The use of pipes in the lead will affect readers as much as dashes do though: negligible. Woody (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I also think Koncorde's idea is worth exploring, but until something materialises the sport should be linked in the first sentence. The appropriate term for the sport in 80-90% of contexts ("football") is too problematic a word not to be linked. Well, the problem really lies with Wikipedia mollycoddling trolls, but that's not going to change, so we have to work around it. —WFC— 15:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not too sure what purpose that article serves. Each play-off final is considered a notable match and each will have its own article created if it hasn't already, probably including a background section that will summarise the semi-finals and league season. The play-offs will also be summarised in the relevant division article (e.g. 2010-11_Football_League_Championship#Playoffs). I see the value of a combined play-off article for older seasons, where some of the complementary articles may not exist, but for 2011 and some other more recent years, joining the three divisional play-off series together in one article seems like duplication. --Jameboy (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Should have i reverted this (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Agudo_Dur%C3%A1n&diff=427303530&oldid=425060960)? I mean, the user, who has been repeatedly warned about his ways and has several of his creations up for a big ole' "AfD", only wrote one of the most poetic approaches i have ever read here ("and caught the attention of European luminaries such as Benfica Lisbon..."), mixing past and present, speculating ("Simply put, there are few players who could command a place in the current Barcelona team, and Nolito will find it extremely difficult to make it past the bench with the quality currently present at the club."), the lot...
He also took it upon himself to remove the references in storyline, with JUST the facts (goals scored, debut with first team - i guess an hat-trick against CD Tenerife, ref'd (!!), is not noteworthy), much better writing approach would be a "Nolito is characterised by fantastic movement, thanks to his impressive agility, quickness, acceleration and pace. In terms of dribbling, he can be compared to Barcelona star Andres Iniesta, as he loses very little speed with the ball at his feet.", or a "Nolito would be an excellent addition to any team in terms of mentality and determination. He is a team player and is professional both on and off the pitch.", and don't forget he "is...a FAMILY MAN".
Is he notable anyway? And besides, i cant find info on him being FC Keirat player, eg soccerway doesn't list him. All google turns out is his kick video. Maybe someone messed the name up and everybody followed. -Koppapa (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Redirected because he is notable for the kicking incident. Mention in the club article is enough.
Footballer notability
I mostly agree with professional footballers being notable, however given the way football is structured globally by this requirement it prevents many top league footballers in countries like Kazakhstan having articles yet permitting 4th league players in anglo countries to have articles because their football infrastructure and wealth is greater. I think this gives a major bias in coverage. I would make a slight change to rule which makes any player who has made a first team appearance in the top football division of any country notable. I think any footballer who has made a senior appearance in a top division game for any country should be notable, even if the club is not fully professional. There are economic and indeed political reasons why the top clubs in many countries are not fully professional, I think such a rule demonstrates a major bias towards anglo countries who are wealthier and have a greater football infrastructure and base. Constant Matoingue should be notable.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld14:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Why? What has Constant Matoingue ever done to deserve significant coverage in third-party English language media? – PeeJay14:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Most of the national players in countries like Chad have very poor coverage in English language media anyway.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld14:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
You are right, and if you mean a national team player, you are right that we would consider such a player to be article-worthy (despite PJ's comment below). The same would be true of a youth team player for a League 2 club who appears in the Johnson's trophy. The bar for NFOOTY is already probably lower than that for GNG, so I don't think that lowering it further will get much support. However, if Mr Matoingue meets GNG, then the professionalism or otherwise of his league is irrelevant. Kevin McE (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and that's why they're not notable. Wikipedia has a very simple notability guideline, and that is that a subject must have received significant coverage in a reliable, third-party, English language source. We further refine this at WP:FOOTY so that a footballer must have played in at least one competitive, first-team game for a professional club; this prevents biographies from being created for players who have received coverage based on their potential. It may seem arbitrary, but that's how it works. After all, it's not up to Wikipedia to determine newsworthiness; we simply set a convenient cut-off point. It's not our fault the Kazakh or Chadian leagues aren't fully professional, that's just the way it is, and if that means that players in those leagues don't get Wikipedia articles, that's too bad. – PeeJay14:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"I think any footballer who has made a senior appearance in a top division game for any country should be notable, even if the club is not fully professional." This has been discussed many times before, with the most frequent rebuttal being the issue of top division players in countries like Andorra, San Marino, Barbados, Tonga etc. These are clearly not notable.
"There are economic and indeed political reasons why the top clubs in many countries are not fully professional." Yes, but the top divisions in many developing countries are fully professional because the clubs draw large crowds, and the top divisions of many developed countries are not professional because they do not draw large enough crowds. I would suggest that the reason many top divisions are not fully professional is because football is not sufficiently popular in those countries to allow them to be, and if that is the case, why should the players be deemed to be notable? Number5714:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
A small point: there's nothing in the notability criteria, general or subject-specific, to suggest that significant coverage has to be in English-language media. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I have found one user making a series of edits where he includes medaltemplates in infoboxes for runers-up positions in Cups, and so. See here or here which were just exemples I had on my watchlist. Is that OK? FkpCascais (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
As long as the honours can be referenced, it should be fine - I mean, we have the |medaltemplates= parameter for a reason...GiantSnowman17:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No part of the infobox makes any of the main article redundant, it's intended as a summary of what's already there. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
But I touth medaltemplates in infoboxes was for Olympics and major NT tournaments (World Cups and Euro´s and correspondents), and not for domestic cups, meaning, specially not for runners-up domestic cup situations... But, I understand it (it is a silver after all), anyway, the fact is that we haven´t been using it (see Michael Owen for exemple) and this opens a pandora box for a entire new field now, and much work to do to complete it for every player, for every cup, for every competition... FkpCascais (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I also thought the medaltemplates thing was originally intended for major tournaments at national team level – the sort of competition where medals are awarded for 1st 2nd and 3rd place finishes – rather than to reproduce the honours section in the infobox. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It started out as just the Olympics, bit that's arbitrary, particularly with the Olympics being relatively minor in footballing terms. Restricting it to national teams seems artbitrary too - there's no reason for it to be incomplete, most competitions give out medals. Also, I wouldn't say that it being "much work to do" is an argument against it; Wikipedia is a voluntary, ongoing project: there'll always be "much work to do", there'll always be articles with less information and fewer features than others. As an editor, you choose to improve articles at your will. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is a difference between the necessary hard work, and the optional one (since its duplicating information already suposedly found in the article), but hey, I was just asking and checking opinions... no problem, I understand the argument of the difficulty in making an inclusion/exclusion criterium. I just found strange that we started, not by Premier League champions or UEFA Champions League winners, but by Romanian Cup runners-up. But, OK, things other way around work just as well. I am just not quite convinced that it is a good thing, and I just still can´t clearly say why... FkpCascais (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't include it in the infoboxes as well. It just bloats up the article and only dublicates information. Olympics is all about medals, thus i like those included. But in football you wanna win titles and thophies, not the medals. ;) -Koppapa (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Besides those edits made are pretty incomplete. He just added the second riunner-up title, not the first, didn't include the three cup wins with later clubs, neither did he add the turkish cup win and no league titles at all. I'd revert those edits. -Koppapa (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
"The 2010 world cup was full of moments of victory, moments of defeat, and moments where errors were made. However, two errors occurring simultaneously in two separate games may have a huge impact on the world of soccer forever." - oh good heavens ;-) This looks for all the world to me like a huge CFORK of Goal-line technology..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It's basically a lengthy appeal for the introduction of video replays, and as an opinion-piece has no place in mainspace. Not sure what the appropriate procedure would be to dispose of it, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed some stuff in the past regarding this field in infobox, and would like to discuss: 1 - have i been doing it right; 2 - different approach techniques.
What is the limit for what we insert in the infobox in this field? I feel it should only contain current club as a coach or player, nothing else. If i have been (am) wrong, my apologies for undue removal of contents.
Some insert everything in current club - president, goalkeeper coach, director of football, under-21 coordinator, honorary chairman, everything. I think if we made an article about a club president who had never played, or a youth coordinator, the person in question would not even have an infobox, hence me insisting the "current club" should only be for players and/or managers. The rest should be referred to in storyline, methinks.
Well, yes, I basically agree. I only insist in adding (for coaches, for exemple) the title under clubnumber, and not in bracketts after the team. And I basically only add former players current team for coaching situations. FkpCascais (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I go by the documentation, which says "If the player now works in a non-playing role at the club, add this after the club in brackets. For retired players not employed by any club or federation, leave blank." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Ooops, so I have been doing bad... I just finded easier, because many times bracketts unecessarily streached the infobox, and the title could easily be added under "clubnumber" instead... FkpCascais (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If you find situations where such a solution over stretches the infobox, maybe line-break it.. as [[Wolverhampton Wanderers]]<br>(Manager) Potentially one of the deprecated parameter bots will remove the <br>,but they may not be looking at the currentclub field --ClubOranjeT07:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
But that would be basically just the same as putting it under clubnumber, a level down. Here´s the exemple of what I mean: Zoltan Sabo. What I really hate is when people put Manager or Coach in place of Position. FkpCascais (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Not really, if you think about what the reader sees, which is what matters. If you put the position against the clubnumber parameter, the reader sees
OK, seems you all dislike it, when find them I´ll revert my edits in such way (a few around, not many, don´t wary :) FkpCascais (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Not all my friend! As i said, that stuff does not belong in box in my humble opinion :) Speaking of "current club" stuff...Isn't it a big scramble to mix PRESENT and FUTURE squad templates? What on earth is Nuri Sahin doing in the Real Madrid squad? As far as i know, he won't be sharing teams with - at least!! - Jerzy Dudek, Fernando Gago, Emmanuel Adebayor, Ezequiel Garay, Pedro León...really confusing folks, what are the guidelines? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear Vasco, that is tipical pre-summer annoying IP editing. For exemple, I have removed Vladimir Volkov already 15 times from FK Partizan squad, and it is only summer rumor! Now, Sahin actually signed, so IP´s will insist on that even more... I supose they don´t know that he´ll come only in summer, or otherwise, they know, but they are just stupid... FkpCascais (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Soccerbase makeover kills links
Hopefully someone can correct me but I think that the specific links to specific season tables (for instance) are now all shot to pieces since Soccerbase underwent their make-under. Anyone know how to link to a specific table for a specific season? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Most season-specific links have gone. If you mean league tables, I use statto.com now, which will give you any club's individual league table for any date, e.g. this. If you mean squad sppearances/goals for specific seasons, you can link to the club's stats tab and add a note saying "select other seasons via dropdown menu", but that's as close as you can get. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Okeydokey, that's what I'd kind of anticipated. I used to be able to "cheat" the Soccerbase urls to go straight to what I wanted, without the drop-down malarky. Perhaps that's no longer possible. God bless on-line gambling adverts.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Players being released
As the season draws to an end, clubs are announcing players that will be released when their contracts end at the end of June. However, IPs take this to mean "released immediately" and are removing them from the 'Current squad' lists. One such example is Bradford City A.F.C., where I have already reached my 3RR limit. Can an admin please revert the latest IP's edits? Cheers, GiantSnowman18:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted it (even if I'm not an admin, I hope that this is good enough). I have the same problem with Borussia Dortmund and Nuri Şahin. I've requested temporary semi-protection of Nuri Şahin, but with no luck so far. I really hate the transfer windows, most of the time it's fighting against windmills with only little help of the admins. --Jaellee (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for that, I only asked for an admin so they could semi-protect the page at the same time or something. GiantSnowman18:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The Sahin situation isn't the same as the released Bradford players - Sahin is moving between clubs that still have games to play before the next transfer window opens, so it's rididulous to say that he's already moved. The Bradford players have de facto left the club, even if de jure they haven't, and that ought to be reflected, even if they're not quite moved from the Bradford squad list. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Disagree - Football contracts finish in June so players remain under contract at their club until then. It's a bit of a grey area but basically the football season in the UK doesn't finish until post Championship play offs so deals are only ratified after that. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm encountering the same issue with IP's changing which league a club is competing in, even though the season has not yet finished. Highly irritating. Argyle 4 Lifetalk18:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It'll get worse - this is the time when IPs start moving players and changing squads based on any old rumour published in the Sun Bladeboy1889 (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion players should be listed on their squad's rooster until 30 June, but mostly I've given up the fight. Even for such clear-cut situations as Şahin's it is sometimes difficult to get a semi-protection until the end of the season. I think that it is sad that we cave in to the mass of (mostly only superficially informed) IP's, but without massive article protection this cannot be changed. --Jaellee (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Most clubs do not provide as much clarity as Bradford on the precise moment that the player's contract expires. 30 June is the "default" end date, because the transfer window opens on 1 July. But it's not uncommon for a player's contract to expire earlier. It often depends on whether the player or the club had the upper hand during the contract negotiation. —WFC— 19:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
From an admin point of view I'd be reluctant to semi-protect a club article purely on the basis of this type of edit. While technically incorrect, they are usually well-intentioned as opposed to vandalism. A hidden comment in the squad section may help a little. Remember to explain to the IPs why they are being reverted (this has been done in the Bradford case, but it is always worth reiterating). Oldelpaso (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Even well-intentioned edits can be wrong. And in my experience, during the transfer windows (and before, as we can see now), there are lots of wrong edits (a lot of people do not seem to know for example the difference between rumor and fact). Explaining this again and again wears me down (especially if you have the feeling that it doesn't help at all). I'd really like to spend my time on more "cheerful" things than trying to teach the unteachable. --Jaellee (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
What I did last season was mark the "released" players in the squad list with a dagger symbol and put a note below the squad list saying "Players marked † will leave the club when their contracts expire on 30 June 2010" with a reference. There were still some instances of players being removed prematurely, but it seemed to work well enough. Probably helped that the reference did say explicitly they were leaving on 30 June, not just that they were being released..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Done the same with Portsmouth. Would appreciate if someone else could keep an eye on the page as well as it seems to have generated a lot of activity over the past couple of days. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, strongly agree that this is the best solution from both points of view. It's more accurate and more relevant, and well-intentioned editors are less likely to remove the names, as it's clear it's not just an oversight. ~ mazcatalk12:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Will do this. Although we haven't confirmed any departures yet (it seems clear who's coming and going, but no confirmation directly from the club). —WFC— 14:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I always thought players had a contract to a VERY SPECIFIC date (and not just in soccer), becoming free agents after that day. Hence, they must remain in "current squad" and their article and box should read they belong to that club until they are released (that date could be accelerated if both parties agree).
Am i correct? And of course, many many newbies only seeking their 15 minutes of wiki-fame could not care less what is being discussed here, they'll keep adding their stuff until the cows come home... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there a good reason why this tournament should appear on Wikipedia with its Romanian name and not with an English one (Romanian Cup, Cup of Romania or anything else)? As far as I can tell, articles about cup competitions are generally entitled by the model "<country> Cup", e.g. Bulgarian Cup. --Theurgist (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As with most situations like this, it should probably be determined by what most English-language reliable sources are calling it. For example, the main Spanish cup, the Copa del Rey, is called just that rather than the English translation - which is primarily because most English-speaking journalists do use the Spanish name. The problem I'm finding in this case, though, is that there's barely any English language coverage of the Romanian Cup - so I don't think there's a strong argument either way. Personally I think it quite reasonable to leave it at Cupa României simply because the lack of English-language coverage means that most further reading someone would wish to do about it would necessarily be in Romanian, and hence that would be the name you need to look for. ~ mazcatalk12:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, his changes regarding Extremadura UD - both players and team - were correct, but he has to be "undone" everytime, he refuses to talk to people, nothing but an utter nuisance, like User:Pararubbas (you know, the man of nearly 70 socks!!!). Nice job! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted all his edits from yesterday. I found this article on de.wikipedia yesterday. [28] spot the differences. He randomly picks a DOB and POB from a family tree, adds VV Waddinxveen because someone with the same name lives there, and another 'biography' is created Cattivi (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, can someone help with the format of the league table that has gone awry. I'm not sure if it's to do with the 'head to head' entries which were added but have not been updated to reflect current ties. The edit that caused the problem appears to be this one. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Do many people have experience with this website? I was doing some research on one of my club's old players, who also played for Woolwich Arsenal, and stumbled upon it. Albeit cumbersome to navigate, it contains a whole host of information which appears to be well researched. I don't have Arsenal versions of the books that are in my possession, so I'm thinking of using it as a source to flesh out the career of this fellow. Worth adding to the link collection? Argyle 4 Lifetalk19:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me to be a very good source 21:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
The site was around some years ago, but apparently died, see e.g. ref #2 at Arsenal F.C. Reserves#Footnotes. I'd guess the stats are extremely accurate, but as a personal website it's probably not "reliable" in the WP:RS sense, unless you can prove Mr Kelly to be a recognised expert in the field. I'd still use them, personally. The scanned handbooks are wonderful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
They are, aren't they. I wouldn't imagine that the site could be used in a featured article, unless it explicitly stated where all the information comes from, but it has been very helpful to me. Argyle 4 Lifetalk00:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Page "moves"
I would like to understand the logic behind this: Panathinaikos FC was named as such when i first started editing, remember it well.
Then, it was moved to Panathinaikos F.C., and now, it's been renamed again without the dots. I know that redirects are not dangerous or vandalism or anything, but can anyone enlighten on the validation of these actions? A bit puzzling to me...
If I remember right, the consensus is to use the dots (F.C. = Football Club) unless the official team name explicitly removes them (for example, AFC Wimbledon). Panathinaikos' official website DOES have the dots, so I would say F.C. is correct here. —BETTIA—talk09:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Another! Now i found that PFC Chernomorets Burgas has been renamed PSFC Chernomorets Burgas...Why not "lose" the PFC and akin and save ourselves a lot of trouble in the redirect department? And from what i understand, you say that "F.C." equals "FOOTBALL CLUB"? Well, so does "FC", as FC Barcelona, Sevilla FC (i could go on forever)...
Of course, the Bulgarian club i now mentioned and similar are the ones we should remove the (needless) initials from (i.e. only CHERNOMORETS BURGAS, for instance Gimnàstic de Tarragona is not the club's full name, but it's how it is named (duly!) in WP), not from the Spanish clubs (and akin) i mentioned later of course :) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The initials PFC/PSFC should be removed from the club name. There is not much point in putting them because no disambiguation is required. The club name is accurate enough without the initials. There is also a PFC Chernomorets Burgas Sofia. --MicroX (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Not quite. Many times the clubs have also other sports sections, so you may probably have a basket, handball, etc. team for Chernomorets, for exemple. I think we better keep it safe and stick to official naming with initials included. FkpCascais (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
After i alerted "the force" at this "user"'s behaviour at Manuel Agudo Durán, i see his M.O. is not new (did it in several articles): he removes the CLUB CAREER/INTERNATIONAL CAREER sections, with references included (!!), and replaces those with the following: 1 - BACKGROUND; 2 - STRENGTHS; 3 - WEAKNESSES; 4 - MENTALITY; 5 - CURRENT SITUATION. Not one single wikilink is provided in his words, not one reference, no nothing, and each section (each section? each sentence!!) is filled with POV/WEASEL/poetic rubbish to the brim.
Enough is enough, i am going to report him to an administrator. Furthermore, he has been warned several times. In André Senghor, he wrote his "stuff" again after being reverted.
This user seems a professional promotional writter. I noteced some exemples and they are just everything WP footy bios shouldn´t be. FkpCascais (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Rumours on Twitter and Facebook, that Capello has resigned/sacked. There are no other sources yet, so his page either needs patrolling or protecting, to a small but steady stream of edits. Brad78 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure you don't mean Rob Green? Kind of bizarre checking twitter to see Lord Sugar is passing on the rumours. Anyway, Capello has made some bizarre decisions, but quitting a job where you get paid £6 million for a fortnight's work every year would be beyond weird. The FA can't afford to sack him. Anyway, you are right that there are rumours going around and so protection will be needed.--EchetusXe23:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
